The Global Warming Pause

[EbylHusker]

Oh yes, NOW I remember Dr. Singer better. He was linked with tobacco money for his stance on second hand smoke not being dangerous, and has been linked with oil company money for his stance on global warming. He's also said, in response to both, that it doesn't matter where his funding comes from.

 

There is not an emoticon available to properly convey my amusement toward Singer's antics.

[T_O_Bull]

No

No? That the best you can do? C'mom tschu! You're are better than that.

T_O_B

[T_O_Bull]

Great, so you found 2 books that "take a hard look" at the science. Books aren't peer reviewed (nevermind that your book sounds like utter nonsense). Putting that aside, there's this:

 

Gotta do better than a poster on a wall.

T_O_B

[T_O_Bull]

Again, holy sh#t...

 

For one, when you copy someone elses review of a book, you might want to put it in quotes, or something else that offsets it, so it doesn't look like you're trying to pass off someone else's professional writing as your own. Second, Dr. Singer is outspoken against the health risks of secondhand smoke...lulz. I doubt I need to say more about that. Three, the book was written in 1997 (I think revised in 2001?)...hopefully you understand a lot has changed/been added in 15 or more years. And while Dr. Singer has published some papers on this topic, he seems far more interested in writing books about it. Yes, no monetary motive there whatsoever...

 

As for losing funding if global warming is debunked, that is utter bullsh#t. The ability to understand, model, and predict (when appropriate) past, current, and future global climates is of serious interest in many areas. There would be no lack of funding for anyone doing research in that area, even if it wasn't specifically linked to global warming anymore. So that argument is complete nonsense and only shows a lack of understanding about the current playing field of scientific discussion.

You are fun to debate with EBYL? Thanks for the opportunity.

T_O_B

 

And once again, there are far, far more consequences to the average global temperature rising than just hotter summers in South Dakota. And even if they're not as immediate as your numbers, it's still a real issue that needs to be worked on. This isn't a few scientists, but a global consensus of virtually everyone working in the related fields. You can't buy that many people off, there's no conspiracy. And if you could buy that much research, the oil companies would have already done it to promote their interests. But they haven't.

 

If you truly believe the main consequence for discussion is potential discomfort due to hotter summers in South Dakota (or anywhere, really), then there's no point in continuing this discussion. I will leave you to your own thoughts.

[T_O_Bull]

Oh yes, NOW I remember Dr. Singer better. He was linked with tobacco money for his stance on second hand smoke not being dangerous, and has been linked with oil company money for his stance on global warming. He's also said, in response to both, that it doesn't matter where his funding comes from.

 

There is not an emoticon available to properly convey my amusement toward Singer's antics.

Never smoked. Never dated or wanted to, a young, or middle aged lady who did. Totally support the ban on smoking in public places. It totally disgusts me. The fact that that the USA would benefit more from subsidizing farmers not to grow tobacco than to grow it baffles me.

 

We still friends EBYL?

 

T_O_B

[tschu]

 

No

No? That the best you can do? C'mom tschu! You're are better than that.

T_O_B

 

The one rule of arguing with conspiracy theorists is not to argue with them

[Junior]

 

Great, so you found 2 books that "take a hard look" at the science. Books aren't peer reviewed (nevermind that your book sounds like utter nonsense). Putting that aside, there's this:

Gotta do better than a poster on a wall.T_O_B

Why? Makes vastly more sense than the nonsense you posted.

[sd'sker]

not worrying about global warming because it is not very hot where you live is like saying there is not a global food shortage because you just had a sandwich.

 

both issues are much more complicated. food shortages are not just about food, global warming is not just about the temperature. that minuscule degree every ten years will melt our ice caps and wreck havoc on our delicate ecosystem.

[zoogs]

There's always a market for nonsense, unfortunately.

[tschu]

Apparently that market also includes the United States Congressional Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

[carlfense]

As for losing funding if global warming is debunked, that is utter bullsh#t.

Uhhh . . .yeah. That. Can you imagine how much money the fossil fuel industries would rain down on someone who debunked man made climate change?

 

Anyone who argues some version of "but you can only make money as a scientist by agreeing with the conventional wisdom" has less than no idea how the scientific process works.

[sd'sker]

 

As for losing funding if global warming is debunked, that is utter bullsh#t.

Uhhh . . .yeah. That. Can you imagine how much money the fossil fuel industries would rain down on someone who debunked man made climate change?

 

Anyone who argues some version of "but you can only make money as a scientist by agreeing with the conventional wisdom" has less than no idea how the scientific process works.

 

enough to raise the sea levels anyway?

[T_O_Bull]

not worrying about global warming because it is not very hot where you live is like saying there is not a global food shortage because you just had a sandwich.

 

both issues are much more complicated. food shortages are not just about food, global warming is not just about the temperature. that minuscule degree every ten years will melt our ice caps and wreck havoc on our delicate ecosystem.

When?

[carlfense]

 

 

As for losing funding if global warming is debunked, that is utter bullsh#t.

Uhhh . . .yeah. That. Can you imagine how much money the fossil fuel industries would rain down on someone who debunked man made climate change?

 

Anyone who argues some version of "but you can only make money as a scientist by agreeing with the conventional wisdom" has less than no idea how the scientific process works.

 

enough to raise the sea levels anyway?

 

Well, if the debunking scientist is on land I think that the amount of cash heaped on and around him would weigh down whatever continent he was on . . . which would push the oceans higher. So yes. #science.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

http://m.livescience.com/48284-life-discovered-in-deep-sea-rocks.html

 

Towering rocks at the bottom of the ocean hold a surprising secret: Life.

These rocks, near natural methane seeps on the seafloor, are home to methane-munching microbes, new research finds. What's more, it appears these tiny rock-dwellers may chow down on enough methane to effect global levels of the gas, which can contribute to climate change.

"We've recognized for awhile that the deep ocean is a sink for methane, but primarily it has been thought that it was only in the sediment," said study researcher Jeffrey Marlow, a graduate student at Caltech. "The fact that it appears to be active in the rocks itself sort of redistributes where that methane is going."