Global Warming

[knapplc]

The whole thing is not political. Some people have politicized it, but that doesn't make the entirety of the conversation politically-motivated.

 

This may come as a shock to some people in this thread, but the global climate covers more than just the contiguous 48 states. Other nations, nations not nearly so politically polarized and big-business-driven, have opinions on this as well. Oddly enough - their opinions aren't concerned with whether it's a Democrat or a Republican agenda sourcing the data. They're looking for facts, not ideology.

[carlfense]

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".

"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.

How do they gain political power by claiming that they are concerned about global warming? Is that assumption crucial to your argument?

 

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

The science isn't political. It's science.

[Nebula]

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.

I really haven't, to be honest. Mother Nature has a way of beating the bejesus out of us when we start to think we're in charge around here.

 

I have made up my mind that it's something we should seriously consider. But business/political interests destroy common sense in this country currently. I'm beginning to view anyone who is staunchly politically motivated in all discussions as an enemy of wisdom. Nothing wrong with agreeing with a political stance. But to do it blindly, in all things, while towing the party line? Those are the people who are smarter than they are acting. (Most of them.)

 

Until humility and fallibility enter the realm of politics, I'll dismiss the entire thing. Climate change is just one little issue that makes up a bigger problem: we can't discuss anything. Nor can we make any progress. We've devolved into a slumbrous, ineffectual slaggard of entitlement. What is a slaggard? No idea. Sounds...right, though.

[knapplc]

I'm beginning to view anyone who is staunchly politically motivated in all discussions as an enemy of wisdom. Nothing wrong with agreeing with a political stance. But to do it blindly, in all things, while towing the party line? Those are the people who are smarter than they are acting. (Most of them.)

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm beginning to view anyone who is staunchly politically motivated in all discussions as an enemy of wisdom. Nothing wrong with agreeing with a political stance. But to do it blindly, in all things, while towing the party line? Those are the people who are smarter than they are acting. (Most of them.)

 

 

 

I'll second that.

[BigRedBuster]

The whole thing is not political. Some people have politicized it, but that doesn't make the entirety of the conversation politically-motivated.

 

This may come as a shock to some people in this thread, but the global climate covers more than just the contiguous 48 states. Other nations, nations not nearly so politically polarized and big-business-driven, have opinions on this as well. Oddly enough - their opinions aren't concerned with whether it's a Democrat or a Republican agenda sourcing the data. They're looking for facts, not ideology.

 

Now we have something we can agree on.

 

Environmentalists need to go fix other countries MUCH worse pollution problem. When the rest of the world comes up to our standards then we can start acting like we need tougher environmental regulations in this country.

[BigRedBuster]

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.

I really haven't, to be honest. Mother Nature has a way of beating the bejesus out of us when we start to think we're in charge around here.

 

I have made up my mind that it's something we should seriously consider. But business/political interests destroy common sense in this country currently. I'm beginning to view anyone who is staunchly politically motivated in all discussions as an enemy of wisdom. Nothing wrong with agreeing with a political stance. But to do it blindly, in all things, while towing the party line? Those are the people who are smarter than they are acting. (Most of them.)

 

Until humility and fallibility enter the realm of politics, I'll dismiss the entire thing. Climate change is just one little issue that makes up a bigger problem: we can't discuss anything. Nor can we make any progress. We've devolved into a slumbrous, ineffectual slaggard of entitlement. What is a slaggard? No idea. Sounds...right, though.

 

Completely agree with the bolded parts. So, doesn't it concern you when scientists come out and claim that "the debate is over". I was very open minded to this issue until one side started acting like they knew for SURE we were the problem with global warming and humans are the cause of all the problems and there wasn't any reason to argue the point anymore.

 

Most of the time when one side in a discussion says that, it spells problems.

 

The fact is, these people have "theories" as to what they believe to be true. Those theories can either be true or false.

[carlfense]

Environmentalists need to go fix other countries MUCH worse pollution problem. When the rest of the world comes up to our standards then we can start acting like we need tougher environmental regulations in this country.

How would you propose that we encourage/force other countries to pollute less?

 

We can control what we do. We can't control what they do.

 

[knapplc]

The whole thing is not political. Some people have politicized it, but that doesn't make the entirety of the conversation politically-motivated.

 

This may come as a shock to some people in this thread, but the global climate covers more than just the contiguous 48 states. Other nations, nations not nearly so politically polarized and big-business-driven, have opinions on this as well. Oddly enough - their opinions aren't concerned with whether it's a Democrat or a Republican agenda sourcing the data. They're looking for facts, not ideology.

 

Now we have something we can agree on.

 

Environmentalists need to go fix other countries MUCH worse pollution problem. When the rest of the world comes up to our standards then we can start acting like we need tougher environmental regulations in this country.

 

OK, yes and no. Per capita we are still one of the world's biggest polluters. China and Russia are ecological disaster areas, largely because they have just about zero regulatory oversight on their industry.

 

But because other countries are worse than us (and I mean, egregiously worse) that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to curb our energy use and pollutants. The problem is, American environmentalists can't fix Russia's and China's problems. They can fix ours, and that's what they're trying to do. To an extent, I support them.

[The Dude]

I honestly hope that people are trolling this thread.

(wishful thinking)

[huskerXman]

http://www.forbes.co...rth-is-cooling/

 

What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.

 

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

 

Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.

 

Check out the 20^th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

 

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

 

In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

 

had to include that first line for nebula.

[zoogs]

More conflating alarmism with science.

 

Science I don't think has ever said "This is catastrophic." It's always been moderate, measured study and I'm sure you will find examples to contradict that.

 

This headline from the Op Ed column takes all this guy is touting as far as dispassionate analysis goes and throws it out the window:

 

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

 

He's just another politically motivated opinion-writer covering science and spinning it to whatever storyline suits him. It's reactionary to what you might say are the liberal-media alarmists who spin it in the opposite direction.

[huskerXman]

More conflating alarmism with science.

 

Science I don't think has ever said "This is catastrophic." It's always been moderate, measured study and I'm sure you will find examples to contradict that.

 

This headline from the Op Ed column takes all this guy is touting as far as dispassionate analysis goes and throws it out the window:

 

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

 

He's just another politically motivated opinion-writer covering science and spinning it to whatever storyline suits him. It's reactionary to what you might say are the liberal-media alarmists who spin it in the opposite direction.

 

 

You claim this person is politically motivated.. How so? I'm not saying it isn't true, just want to know why you think so

[knapplc]

You claim this person is politically motivated.. How so? I'm not saying it isn't true, just want to know why you think so

 

Are you asking him to confirm your beliefs? You already think it's politically motivated....

 

Since when has this ever been just an academic issue? It has never been an academic issue, it has always been political.

[zoogs]

Well, maybe politically is an unfair statement. He's biased and it's plainly evident from the headline. We have been talking about how there's scientific debate over plenty of things within climate research - challenges to current models, ideas, data, so on and so on and so on. This is part of the ever-ongoing process of science and it's the process by which new and better knowledge is acquired about any number of topics.

 

It's great.

 

What's pretty inane is taking this and saying, "HA! Global warming is all lies. My side is right in that debate."

 

He's free to criticize alarmists, who have always been deserving of the criticism...but then he goes on and makes positive conclusions of his own, in that headline, as if to say it's now a settled matter in the opposite direction.

 

I think the best scientists in the world could tell you that the alarmists are taking something and just running with it way beyond where they should. Plenty of people can have very different, reasonable opinions about what sort of policy initiatives should be undertaken in this regard. But too many times you see science abused as a prop, such as in this article, and ongoing research and debates settled by opinion writers.

 

And, by the way, here's a little "simple research" on the sponsors of the Climate Change Conference the article is about:

 

Home | Heartland Institute

heartland.org/

Database of published research, primarily against environmentalist regulation.

 

and

 

http://en.wikipedia....tland_Institute

 

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian^[2] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which advocates free market policies.^[3][4][5][6] The Institute is designated as a 501©(3) non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and has a full-time staff of 40, including editors and senior fellows.^[7] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare,tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing^[8] global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

 

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.^[9][10][11] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."^[12] The Institute has sponsored meetings ofclimate change skeptics,^[13] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on climate change.^[14]

 

^{So, upon further review, I might have to reaffirm my previous statement that the guy is more than biased, he's politically motivated.}