So, exactly what...

[Yonivore]

...did Algore do to warrant his receiving a Nobel Prize for Peace?

For the life of me, I can't make a connection between his bloviating over global war...er, global climate change...and the establishment of peace anywhere in the world. If anything, he is fomenting geopolitical tension with his nonsense.

Anyway...I thought the recipient was usually someone on who the Nobel Prize Committee could generally pin a real or imagined peaceful result; Arafat and his meaningless handshake with Begin for instance.

What did Algore do?

[ChumpDumper]

Bush actually won the popular Nobel vote.

[xrayzebra]

Bush actually won the popular Nobel vote.

And Chump has the obvious distinction of being the
"know it all" on the ST forum and being taken off of the
Moderator list

[FromWayDowntown]

Bush actually won the popular Nobel vote.

:lol

[Yonivore]

I'll try again...

So, exactly what did Algore do to warrant his receiving a Nobel Prize for Peace?

For the life of me, I can't make a connection between his bloviating over global war...er, global climate change...and the establishment of peace anywhere in the world. If anything, he is fomenting geopolitical tension with his nonsense.

Anyway...I thought the recipient was usually someone on who the Nobel Prize Committee could generally pin a real or imagined peaceful result; Arafat and his meaningless handshake with Begin for instance.

What did Algore do?

[xrayzebra]

I'll try again...

So, exactly what did Algore do to warrant his receiving a Nobel Prize for Peace?

For the life of me, I can't make a connection between his bloviating over global war...er, global climate change...and the establishment of peace anywhere in the world. If anything, he is fomenting geopolitical tension with his nonsense.

Anyway...I thought the recipient was usually someone on who the Nobel Prize Committee could generally pin a real or imagined peaceful result; Arafat and his meaningless handshake with Begin for instance.

What did Algore do?
Yoni, you really don't expect a coherent answer to this
question do you?

[Yonivore]

Yoni, you really don't expect a coherent answer to this
question do you?
I don't think there is one.

[clambake]

it must be disappointing that bush is worried about global warming.

[ChumpDumper]

Wrote some books, had a slideshow and a movie based on the slideshow that have the cumulative effect of being a catalyst for international cooperation regarding the real issues of environmental preservation.

Maybe it doesn't take a whole lot -- I'm just glad it pisses you off.

[ChumpDumper]

And Chump has the obvious distinction of being the
"know it all" on the ST forum and being taken off of the
Moderator listAnd x has the obvious distinction of being too stupid to get a joke.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Al Gore was more deserving than the other nominee, Irena Sendler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler

<dripping of sarcasm>

[FromWayDowntown]

According to Alfred Nobel's will, which defines the criteria for each of the Nobel awards, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." By express language, the award certainly contemplates those whose acts appear to make the world safe from war; but the criteria are not limited to such individuals or groups. Instead, the criteria allow for recognizing those who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations."

The term "fraternity" has a fairly broad meaning -- certainly, it could be read to encompass efforts to protect the world from a known danger; indeed, the prize has been awarded to those who undertake efforts that might be described as more humanitarian than peaceful. For instance, in 2006, the prize was awarded to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work," and in 1999, Médecins Sans Frontières of Switzerland won the Prize "in recognition of the organization's pioneering humanitarian work on several continents." There are many other examples.

I understand that Yonivore and others disagree with Gore on the global warming and will always see Gore's efforts as silly, at best. Obviously, there are many scientists who are very capable professionals who engage in the global warming debate in an earnest discussion of scientific fact. It would be difficult to convince any but the most ardent warming opponents that they lack a scientific basis for their concerns. And it would be difficult to convince most of the world that concerns about global warming are invalid in every respect. As such, since there is a reasonable debate about global warming's effect on our planet and since efforts to curb global warming could be reasonably seen as humanitarian efforts aimed at furthering fraternity among the nations, recognizing the work of those who fight global warming by the award of a Nobel Peace prize is understandable. That work, even if limited to an effort to bring the issues of global warming to the public in a format that is widely-available, provides a basis for the award, I think.

That, or it speaks volumes to the unwillingness of any major players on the world stage to do a damned thing to make a real difference in places like Darfur.

[spurster]

Al Gore has helped put the US and the world on notice about global warming. It is not hard to predict a great deal of strife as global warming continues.

Of course in this day and age of truthiness, you can find numerous authoritative-sounding naysayers who can ignore the evidence that it is happening before our eyes. Because these naysayers are largely Republican, once the evidence becomes impossible for even US voters to ignore, it will put the GOP in a deep hole for a long time. Even BushCo has turned on this issue, though proposing anything that involves any amount of sacrifice is beyond them. Ditto for the Republican candidates.

What makes California so liberal? Here is my hypothesis. Anyone who has been there, especially in the LA area, can easily see that we are not putting good things into the air, and we have a pressing need to do something about it. When bad things are happening and the "conservatives" deny it and oppose measures to do anything about it, it is not hard to conclude that reality has a "liberal" bias.

[Yonivore]

According to Alfred Nobel's will, which defines the criteria for each of the Nobel awards, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." By express language, the award certainly contemplates those whose acts appear to make the world safe from war; but the criteria are not limited to such individuals or groups. Instead, the criteria allow for recognizing those who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations."

The term "fraternity" has a fairly broad meaning -- certainly, it could be read to encompass efforts to protect the world from a known danger; indeed, the prize has been awarded to those who undertake efforts that might be described as more humanitarian than peaceful. For instance, in 2006, the prize was awarded to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work," and in 1999, Médecins Sans Frontières of Switzerland won the Prize "in recognition of the organization's pioneering humanitarian work on several continents." There are many other examples.

I understand that Yonivore and others disagree with Gore on the global warming and will always see Gore's efforts as silly, at best. Obviously, there are many scientists who are very capable professionals who engage in the global warming debate in an earnest discussion of scientific fact. It would be difficult to convince any but the most ardent warming opponents that they lack a scientific basis for their concerns. And it would be difficult to convince most of the world that concerns about global warming are invalid in every respect. As such, since there is a reasonable debate about global warming's effect on our planet and since efforts to curb global warming could be reasonably seen as humanitarian efforts aimed at furthering fraternity among the nations, recognizing the work of those who fight global warming by the award of a Nobel Peace prize is understandable. That work, even if limited to an effort to bring the issues of global warming to the public in a format that is widely-available, provides a basis for the award, I think.

That, or it speaks volumes to the unwillingness of any major players on the world stage to do a damned thing to make a real difference in places like Darfur.
It'll all seem pretty silly when, in 15 years, the planet is cooling again and those places that have experienced extended growing seasons because of the moderate warming are feeding the planet.

[Yonivore]

Al Gore has helped put the US and the world on notice about global warming. It is not hard to predict a great deal of strife as global warming continues.
Sure it is. One could easily predict a great deal of benefit from a warmer cliamate.

What is the ideal climate for this planet? Maybe we need growing seasons in Greenland -- again.


Of course in this day and age of truthiness, you can find numerous authoritative-sounding naysayers who can ignore the evidence that it is happening before our eyes. Because these naysayers are largely Republican, once the evidence becomes impossible for even US voters to ignore, it will put the GOP in a deep hole for a long time. Even BushCo has turned on this issue, though proposing anything that involves any amount of sacrifice is beyond them. Ditto for the Republican candidates.

What makes California so liberal? Here is my hypothesis. Anyone who has been there, especially in the LA area, can easily see that we are not putting good things into the air, and we have a pressing need to do something about it. When bad things are happening and the "conservatives" deny it and oppose measures to do anything about it, it is not hard to conclude that reality has a "liberal" bias.
You need to make up your mind whether or not you're going to talk about toxic pollutants or climate changing emissions.

[FromWayDowntown]

It'll all seem pretty silly when, in 15 years, the planet is cooling again and those places that have experienced extended growing seasons because of the moderate warming are feeding the planet.

I'm not expressing an opinion regarding the merits of Gore's selection -- I'm merely offering a theory for why he would be deserving of the award. Again, it seems as though one side or the other is going to be screaming about this issue for the foreseeable future, since global changes aren't generally marked on year-by-year timetables. There's enough proof of warming to alarm some scientists; there isn't enough proof to convince others that this is anything more than an ecological and climatological phenomenon that would occur with or without man. I'd honestly be surprised if anyone could reach a conclusive answer to these questions within my lifetime.

But I also don't see why there's such an unwillingness in some corners to undertake reasonable limitations upon the amounts of chemicals and pollutants that we put into our ecosystem -- it's a bit like being told that you're in danger of having a heart attack and choosing to devour plates of french fries at every meal after that diagnosis.

[Yonivore]

I'm not expressing an opinion regarding the merits of Gore's selection -- I'm merely offering a theory for why he would be deserving of the award.
No, I understood that and I appreciate your logical approach to the award. However, the Nobel Committee has tortured credulity in the past in order to make political statements. This year is no exception.


Again, it seems as though one side or the other is going to be screaming about this issue for the foreseeable future, since global changes aren't generally marked on year-by-year timetables. There's enough proof of warming to alarm some scientists; there isn't enough proof to convince others that this is anything more than an ecological and climatological phenomenon that would occur with or without man. I'd honestly be surprised if anyone could reach a conclusive answer to these questions within my lifetime.
Oh, I think they will. Truth will out...this isn't that hard of an equation were it not for the strong political winds that have carried the topic into the realm of silliness.

Global cooling of the 1970's was pretty much discounted in our lifetime. Anthropogenic Global Climate Change will bend to the will of scientific fact soon enough.


But I also don't see why there's such an unwillingness in some corners to undertake reasonable limitations upon the amounts of chemicals and pollutants that we put into our ecosystem -- it's a bit like being told that you're in danger of having a heart attack and choosing to devour plates of french fries at every meal after that diagnosis.
Well, Kyoto isn't reasonable. Much of what is being proposed by the Algore crowd is neither reasonable nor is it something they, themselves, are willing to undertake.

Another reason Mr. "enormous-$12,000-a-month-electric-bill-carbon-footprint" has no credibility on the issue.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Gllobal cooling of the 1970's was pretty much discounted in our lifetime. Anthropogenic Global Climate Change will bend to the will of scientific fact soon enough.

global cooling was never widely accepted by the scientific community, and it was never treated as a viable theory. you should probably stop using that example because it just doesn't work.

[George Gervin's Afro]

maybe because he has brought attention to it. the globe is warming.. that was easy.

[Yonivore]

global cooling was never widely accepted by the scientific community, and it was never treated as a viable theory. you should probably stop using that example because it just doesn't work.
Please, how old were you when they [scientific concensus] was predicting an ice age in our lifetime?

This is the same scientific concensus (a relatively new standard of proof) that now claims we're headed for an intolerable warming period.

[Yonivore]

maybe because he has brought attention to it. the globe is warming.. that was easy.
Actually, there are indications the globe stopped warming about 10 years ago.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Please, how old were you when they [scientific concensus] was predicting an ice age in our lifetime?

This is the same scientific concensus (a relatively new standard of proof) that now claims we're headed for an intolerable warming period.

it was one magazine article and some stories on the news, and that was it. It never picked up traction among scientists, but it did make for good tv. apparently, you were suckered by the hype.

[Yonivore]

it was one magazine article and some stories on the news, and that was it. It never picked up traction among scientists, but it did make for good tv. apparently, you were suckered by the hype.
Actually, I wasn't. I was as skeptical of global cooling as I am of this current fad.

But, you're wrong. It was no more, nor less, "hyped" than is the current global crisis.

[clambake]

you have a real hard-on for Gore. so how do you feel about Bush jumping to the other side on this issue?

[Oh, Gee!!]

But, you're wrong. It was no more, nor less, "hyped" than is the current global crisis.

It may have been hyped the media, but it was not accepted among the scientific community in the way global warming has been. It sounds to me like your major beef is with the amount of media/political attention given to global warming.

[Yonivore]

It may have been hyped the media, but it was not accepted among the scientific community in the way global warming has been. It sounds to me like your major beef is with the amount of media/political attention given to global warming.
Point me to one scientist, in the discipline of climatology, that has published a paper saying anthropogenic global warming is an irrefutable fact and, in which, he lays out the scientific evidence.

Just one. And, that bogus UN ICC whatevertheyareandtheirscientificconcensus doesn't count.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I doubt you'll find any scientist claiming that global warming is an irrefutable fact.

[Yonivore]

I doubt you'll find any scientist claiming that global warming is an irrefutable fact.
Why not? Algore is trying to get the world to walk of the economic abyss and enact controls that will strangle the most prosperous economies on the planet while doing nothing for the poorest nations -- and, requiring nothing of the worst offenders (China).

If it's not an irrefutable fact, you're placing a whole lot of eggs in one basket.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why not? Algore is trying to get the world to walk of the economic abyss and enact controls that will strangle the most prosperous economies on the planet while doing nothing for the poorest nations -- and, requiring nothing of the worst offenders (China).

You have an unhealthy obsession with al gore.


If it's not an irrefutable fact, you're placing a whole lot of eggs in one basket.

Scientists don't speak of terms of irrefutable because that is an impossible standard to attain.

[Nbadan]

Why not? Algore is trying to get the world to walk of the economic abyss and enact controls that will strangle the most prosperous economies on the planet while doing nothing for the poorest nations -- and, requiring nothing of the worst offenders (China).

China?!? :lol

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

China?!? :lol

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...what?! that can't be true. how can that be if china's population outnumbers the US?

[Yonivore]

Here's a climatologists that say global warming is a bunch of bullshit.

An Inconvenient Expert (http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200710/richard-lindzen-1.html)

And an independent scientist, specializing in environmental sciences:

The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change (http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf)

Oops, there goes the concensus:

Study: No Scientific Consensus on Global Warming Claims (http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005397.cfm)

It ain't warming in Antartica:

No Global Warming in Antarctica (http://www.iceagenow.com/No_Global_Warming_in_Antarctica.htm)

Wow! Hundreds of scientists have published papers refuting man-made global warming:

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml)

The "father of climatology" calls global warming "hooey:"

University of Wisconsin professor emeritus calls global warming theory 'hooey' (http://www.iceagenow.com/Dont_make_me_throw_up.htm)

And, finally, a few experts address Algore's theory...

A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth" (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706a.htm)

Find me one that says it is a scientific fact. Just one.

I could have sworn that Algore said the science was settled on this matter.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I find it odd that you're asking me to convince you of something that you call b/s. That's a fool's errand.

[Yonivore]

You have an unhealthy obsession with al gore.
He's championing a myth that has dire implications for our nation's future economic health.


Scientists don't speak of terms of irrefutable because that is an impossible standard to attain.
Fine then. Find me one that believes -- and has published a paper stating -- anthropogenic global warming is real. Just one.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

China?!? :lol

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...1/8 my ass, and this was 2004. global warming is clouding your glasses.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/Fossil_Fuels_in_2004.gif

[Yonivore]

China?!? :lol

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...
China is building a coal-burning power plant a day. Why exempt them from Kyoto?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Fine then. Find me one that believes -- and has published a paper stating -- anthropogenic global warming is real. Just one.

why does it have to be a climatologist?

[Yonivore]

why does it have to be a climatologist?
Because, surely, if anthropogenic global climate change is occurring, you can find a climatologist that is willing to document his scientific hypothesis supported by data.

Are you saying there are no climatologists that are willing to state anthropogenic global climate change is happening? Because, that's what I'm saying.

In fact, there are several climatologists that are saying it's a bunch of bunk.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

China?!? :lol

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...this is practically sig worthy.

[Nbadan]

Perhaps the real problem is your source...


Most surprising is the dramatic surge in energy use in many industrial countries. Compared with just 10 years ago, for example, Americans are driving larger and less efficient cars and buying bigger homes and more appliances. As a result, U.S. oil use has increased over the decade by nearly 2.7 million barrels a day—more oil than is used daily in total in India and Pakistan, which together contain more than four times as many people as the United States does. In total, the average American consumes five times more energy than the average global citizen, 10 times more than the average Chinese, and nearly 20 times more than the average Indian.

World Watch (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/808)

[Yonivore]

Okay, it doesn't have to be a climatologist. You too can prove anthropogenic global climate change is occurring in a convincing and definitive manner.

Just win this:

The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge (http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/)

And, not only will you win the argument but, you'll be $125,000.00 richer. That'll buy a few carbon offsets.

[Nbadan]

Selected Nations Oil Efficiency (barrel/person/year)

DRC 0.13
Ethiopia 0.37
Bangladesh 0.57
Myanmar 0.73
Pakistan 1.95
Nigeria 2.17
India 2.18
Vietnam 2.70
Philippines 3.77
Indonesia 4.63
China 4.96
Egypt 7.48
Turkey 9.85
Brazil 11.67
Poland 11.67
World 12.55
Thailand 13.86
Russia 17.66
Mexico 18.07
Iran 21.56
European Union 29.70
United Kingdom 30.18
Germany 32.31
France 32.43
Italy 32.43
Austria 34.01
Spain 35.18
Switzerland 34.64
Sweden 34.68
Taiwan 41.68
Japan 42.01
Australia 42.22
South Korea 43.84
Norway 52.06
Belgium 61.52
United States 68.81
Canada 69.85
Saudi Arabia 75.08
Singapore 178.45

Wikipedia

Top petroleum-consuming countries
# Consuming Nation (bbl/day) (m³/day)

1 United States 20,030,000 3,184,516
2 China 6,391,000 1,016,088
3 Japan 5,578,000 886,831
4 Russia 2,800,000 445,164
5 Germany 2,677,000 425,609
6 India 2,320,000 368,851
7 Canada 2,300,000 365,671
8 South Korea 2,061,000 327,673
9 France 2,060,000 327,514
10 Italy 1,874,000 297,942
11 Saudi Arabia 1,775,000 282,202
12 Mexico 1,752,000 278,546
13 United Kingdom 1,722,000 273,776
14 Brazil 1,610,000 255,970

[ChumpDumper]

Why do the neocons love air pollution?

[DarkReign]

this is practically sig worthy.

No, but that might have.

[spurster]

Point me to one scientist, in the discipline of climatology, that has published a paper saying anthropogenic global warming is an irrefutable fact and, in which, he lays out the scientific evidence.

Just one. And, that bogus UN ICC whatevertheyareandtheirscientificconcensus doesn't count.
So the 1000+ scientists behind the IPCC doesn't count? It impresses us all that you know more than they do.

[Yonivore]

So the 1000+ scientists behind the IPCC doesn't count? It impresses us all that you know more than they do.
The IPCC is a political document not a scientific paper. Name one of those 1000+ (LOL) that have written a scientific paper supporting the IPCC "concensus" document. Just one.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I don't buy the explaanations for Gore getting the prize. Nobel's will:


"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:

The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not."

Now this was his will, and of course, mony funded by others can be used in other manners. Still, could someone explain to me how the dramatic steps required to eliminate man-made global warming as said by Gore promotes peace? How does it work towards the "abolition or reduction of standing armies?" If anything, it will cause more pressure on such things as energy becomes restricted.

[FromWayDowntown]

Curiously, the very language that you've underlined makes clear that work to abolish standing armies is not the sole criteria for awarding the Peace Prize.

I'll bold what you didn't:


and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

We've already covered this point elsewhere in the thread, but the history of the Peace Prize is replete with laureates whose contributions are more humanitarian in their effect than aimed at reducing warfare or assuring peace:


The term "fraternity" has a fairly broad meaning -- certainly, it could be read to encompass efforts to protect the world from a known danger; indeed, the prize has been awarded to those who undertake efforts that might be described as more humanitarian than peaceful. For instance, in 2006, the prize was awarded to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work," and in 1999, Médecins Sans Frontières of Switzerland won the Prize "in recognition of the organization's pioneering humanitarian work on several continents." There are many other examples.

Because the history of the award demonstrates precedent for bestowing it upon those who engage in humanitarian efforts, there is certainly room to understand why Vice President Gore's efforts would attract the eye of the committee:


Obviously, there are many scientists who are very capable professionals who engage in the global warming debate in an earnest discussion of scientific fact. It would be difficult to convince any but the most ardent warming opponents that they lack a scientific basis for their concerns. And it would be difficult to convince most of the world that concerns about global warming are invalid in every respect. As such, since there is a reasonable debate about global warming's effect on our planet and since efforts to curb global warming could be reasonably seen as humanitarian efforts aimed at furthering fraternity among the nations, recognizing the work of those who fight global warming by the award of a Nobel Peace prize is understandable. That work, even if limited to an effort to bring the issues of global warming to the public in a format that is widely-available, provides a basis for the award, I think.

Please do try to keep up.

[ChumpDumper]

Fellas, Gore helped to get 172 countries to agree on something that could actually help mankind.

Let me know someone else who pulled off a similar feat and I'll consider writing a strongly worded email to the Nobel committee.

[Mr. Peabody]

Fellas, Gore helped to get 172 countries to agree on something that could actually help mankind.

Let me know someone else who pulled off a similar feat and I'll consider writing a strongly worded email to the Nobel committee.

It's obvious that the merit of these Nobel-winning acts is only being questioned to this extent because one of the Nobel recipients was Al Gore. Those of you on the right should look on the bright side, it gives Rush and Hannity something to whine about for the next six months.

[Wild Cobra]

Curiously, the very language that you've underlined makes clear that work to abolish standing armies is not the sole criteria for awarding the Peace Prize.

I was simply pointion aout the key criteria missed. Those three qualifiers were not 'this, or, this, or this,' but the third one used an "AND" qualifier. Now correct me if I'm wrong, English is my worse subject....

Doesn't that ,mean all three must apply?

I read it as:

done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations

AND

for the abolition or reduction of standing armies

AND

for the holding and promotion of peace congresses

If I'm wrong about commas and "and/or" qualifiers then fine. Am I?

[Wild Cobra]

China?!? :lol

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...
Wow... I missed this statement until seeing others point it out.

Sorry Dan, China's industrial base is growing real fast. I don't recall the numbers, but I think it was either 12% or 18% annual growth of greenhouse gas emissions these last few years. The have recently surpassed the USA in greenhouse gas emissions!

Your 1/8th figure I think is from a chart (http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions.php) showing 1994 numbers for China and 2002 numbers for the USA, ant it's a per capita number.

The actual numbers are 3650 for China 1994 vs. 6746 for the USA 2002 numbers. I think the numbers are mega-tons, but I'm not sure.

link:

China now no. 1 in CO2 emissions; USA in second position (http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html) ; part of article:


In 2006 global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use increased by about 2.6%, which is less than the 3.3% increase in 2005. The 2.6% increase is mainly due to a 4.5% increase in global coal consumption, of which China contributed more than two-third. China’s 2006 CO2 emissions surpassed those of the USA by 8%. This includes CO2 emissions from industrial processes (cement production). With this, China tops the list of CO2 emitting countries for the first time. In 2005, CO2 emissions of China were still 2% below those of the USA. These figures are based on a preliminary estimate by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), using recently published BP (British Petroleum) energy data and cement production data. In the 1990-2006 period global fossil-fuel related CO2 emissions increased over 35%.

[Wild Cobra]

Now Dan, you posted a nice usage of oil. What about coal?

Coal consumption (Most recent) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption):

#1 China: 1,310,000,000
#2 United States: 1,060,000,000
#3 India: 339,000,000
#4 Russia: 298,000,000
#5 Germany: 265,000,000
#6 South Africa: 170,500,000
#7 Japan: 149,500,000
#8 Australia: 144,170,000
#9 Korea, North: 103,600,000
#10 Ukraine: 97,200,000

etc. etc.

[FromWayDowntown]

I was simply pointion aout the key criteria missed. Those three qualifiers were not 'this, or, this, or this,' but the third one used an "AND" qualifier. Now correct me if I'm wrong, English is my worse subject....

Doesn't that ,mean all three must apply?

I read it as:

done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations

AND

for the abolition or reduction of standing armies

AND

for the holding and promotion of peace congresses

If I'm wrong about commas and "and/or" qualifiers then fine. Am I?

You should really take that up with the Nobel committee. I'm quite confident that the committee has considered the wishes set forth in Alfred Nobel's will in deciding the recipients of this year's awards. I'd also note that, again, this committee has previously used that precise language to award the prize to those whose works were humanitarian rather than peaceful.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you arguing that the committee should be comprised of strict constructionists? Maybe President Bush can appoint several Will Originalists or a couple of Textualists to the committee in the near future. For now, I'm content that a committee that has routinely awarded this prize to humanitarians has not gone so far afield from its charter in bestowing the prize this year as to make the whole thing historically untenable.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you arguing that the committee should be comprised of strict constructionists?

The committee can do as they please as long as it wasn't with the money willed by Nobel. That money is likely long gone, but I don't really know. Is the Nobel prize funded by some means now?

I was simply pointing out it was not by the original intent. I believe I already covered the willed money aspect. If I didn't, I meant to.

We have seen for some years now that the Nobel prizes have become more political than by original intent. One of those pains in life we must accept.

As for strict constructionist application? I've seen the word used different ways. If by what I consider it to mean, then yes. I would like to see that applied. I like the original intent idea that matures with modern times.

Still, how does a film on global warming bring peace? It has helped to bring people together for a common goal, but that goal has little to do with peace. It's the environment!

[George Gervin's Afro]

IN MY OPINON We have seen for some years now that the Nobel prizes have become more political than by original intent. One of those pains in life we must accept.

I fixed your post for you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The committee can do as they please as long as it wasn't with the money willed by Nobel. That money is likely long gone, but I don't really know. Is the Nobel prize funded by some means now?

I was simply pointing out it was not by the original intent. I believe I already covered the willed money aspect. If I didn't, I meant to.

We have seen for some years now that the Nobel prizes have become more political than by original intent. One of those pains in life we must accept.

As for strict constructionist application? I've seen the word used different ways. If by what I consider it to mean, then yes. I would like to see that applied. I like the original intent idea that matures with modern times.

Still, how does a film on global warming bring peace? It has helped to bring people together for a common goal, but that goal has little to do with peace. It's the environment!

Some people find the environment pretty important as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Some people find the environment pretty important as well.
Then create a separate environmental award...

I wonder who should have been given the peace award?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then create a separate environmental award...

I wonder who should have been given the peace award?


Well then you and your fellow bretheren need to stop the whining and create your own award for the hush's and whannitys of the world..

[Hook Dem]

One thing can be counted on in this forum. Liberals hate conservatives and conservatives hate liberals. Please feel free to deny that!!!!!

[spurster]

The IPCC is a political document not a scientific paper. Name one of those 1000+ (LOL) that have written a scientific paper supporting the IPCC "concensus" document. Just one.
Here are a few US scientists backing the IPCC:

http://www.ipccinfo.com/briefings.php

[Oh, Gee!!]

Because, surely, if anthropogenic global climate change is occurring, you can find a climatologist that is willing to document his scientific hypothesis supported by data.

and what will you do with the information if provided? will it convince you of anything? so why should I or anyone else bother to provide you with information you'll simply dismiss or call non-scientific political propoganda?


Are you saying there are no climatologists that are willing to state anthropogenic global climate change is happening? Because, that's what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying I ain't doing a damn thing for you.


In fact, there are several climatologists that are saying it's a bunch of bunk.

well bully for them

[spurster]

The IPCC is a political document not a scientific paper. Name one of those 1000+ (LOL) that have written a scientific paper supporting the IPCC "concensus" document. Just one.
How about a whole issue of Nature, a scientific journal you may have heard of.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445567a.html

[boutons_]

October 15, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Gore Derangement Syndrome

By PAUL KRUGMAN

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

=============

Naturally, the right-wing-nuts here think (popularly elected) Gore would have been a worse president than the the (SCOTUS-elected) worst president in the history of US.

[Yonivore]

How about a whole issue of Nature, a scientific journal you may have heard of.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445567a.html
You linked to an article on the IPCC report. It doesn't even have a name attached to it. Sorry, Nature is the Newsweek of Science. Now, if you point to where they published a scientist's paper on climate change, that'd be different.

[Yonivore]

and what will you do with the information if provided?
Read it.


will it convince you of anything?
I won't know that until I read it.


so why should I or anyone else bother to provide you with information...
Because that's usually the way debates and arguments are waged. You make an argument, support it with factual references and I have an opportunity to scrutinize your references in order to formulate a response.


you'll simply dismiss or call non-scientific political propoganda?
Sounds to me like you've already characterized your own resources.


I'm not saying that. I'm saying I ain't doing a damn thing for you.
Okay. Then I win the argument.


well bully for them
Yes, bully for them. Especially since you don't see any of their peers -- only Algore and Hollywood types -- refuting them.

Bully for them, indeed.

[Yonivore]

Here are a few US scientists backing the IPCC:

http://www.ipccinfo.com/briefings.php
From the lead paragraph of your link:


Four regional pre-release briefings were held for the Northeast, West, Midwest and South April 2-4, 2007 to allow reporters to talk with leading scientists who are experts on what global warming may mean for their region and to obtain background on the IPCC working group reports
I don't see any of their papers linked in the article and the nowhere in the link does it talk about anthropogenic causes of global warming.

But, thanks for the link none-the-less, I'll give it a read.

[George Gervin's Afro]

and what will you do with the information if provided? will it convince you of anything? so why should I or anyone else bother to provide you with information you'll simply dismiss or call non-scientific political propoganda?



I'm not saying that. I'm saying I ain't doing a damn thing for you.



well bully for them



hey gee Yoni always wins. he declares himself the winner all of the time.

[Yonivore]

Behind link #1 we have Professor J. D. Aber, PhD. Below are the publications they selected to list on the link your page led to. You'll notice not one on Anthropogenic Climate Change. Not a single one...


Aber, J.D., W.H. McDowell, K.J. Nadelhoffer, A. Magill, G. Berntson, M. Kamakea, S.G. McNulty, W. Currie, L. Rustad and I. Fernandez. 1998. Nitrogen saturation in temperate forest ecosystems: hypotheses revisited. BioScience 48:921-934

Aber, J.D. and R. Freuder. 2000. Sensitivity of a forest production model to variation in solar radiation data sets for the Eastern U.S. Climate Research 15:33-43

Aber, J.D. 2001. Reaching Scientific Consensus and Informing Public Policy. BioScience 51:699

Aber, J.D., S.V. Ollinger, C.T. Driscoll, G.E. Likens, R.T. Holmes, R.J. Freuder, and C.L. Goodale 2002. Inorganic N losses from a forested ecosystem in response to physical, chemical, biotic and climatic perturbations. Ecosystems 5:648-658

Aber, J.D., C.L. Goodale, S.V. Ollinger, M.-L. Smith, A.H. Magill, M.E. Martin, J.L. Stoddard. 2003. Is nitrogen altering the nitrogen status of northeastern forests? BioScience 53:375-390

Foster, D.R., F. Swanson, J. Aber, D. Tilman, N. Brockaw, I. Burke and A Knapp. 2003. The importance of land-use and its legacies to ecology and environmental management. BioScience 53:77-88

Goodale, C.L., J.D. Aber and P.M. Vitousek. 2003. An unexpected nitrate decline in New Hampshire streams. Ecosystems 6:75-86

Galloway, J.N., J.D. Aber, J.W. Erisman, S.P. Seitzinger, R.H. Howarth, E.B. Cowling and B.J. Cosby. 2003. The Nitrogen Cascade. Bioscience 53:341-356

Driscoll, C.T., D. Whitall, J. Aber, E. Boyer, M. Castro, C. Cronan, C. Goodale, P. Groffman, C. Hopkinson, K. Lambert, G. Lawrence and S. Ollinger. 2003. Nitrogen Pollution in the northeastern United States: Sources, effects and management options. BioScience 53:357-374

Venterea, R.T., P.M Groffman, L.V. Verchot, A.H. Magill, J.D. Aber and P.A. Steudler. 2003 Nitrogen oxide gas emissions from temperate forest soils receiving long-term nitrogen inputs. Global Change Biology 9:346-357
We'll keep looking...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Because that's usually the way debates and arguments are waged. You make an argument, support it with factual references and I have an opportunity to scrutinize your references in order to formulate a response.

there's no point, yoni. it doesn't matter what I provide to you, you're mind is made up. a debate would be meaningless because we would both stick to our guns and nothing would be resolved.



Sounds to me like you've already characterized your own resources. Okay. Then I win the argument.

whatever floats your boat

[Yonivore]

there's no point, yoni. it doesn't matter what I provide to you, you're mind is made up. a debate would be meaningless because we would both stick to our guns and nothing would be resolved.
D'okie dokie.


whatever floats your boat
It floats my Spurstalk boat...a little something I tow behind my yacht of a life.

[Yonivore]

hey gee Yoni always wins. he declares himself the winner all of the time.
Hey, if he gives up...

And, I thought you had a good memory...you even said so in that other thread where you're kind of stalkerishly fawning all over me. Personally, I don't recall having declared victory in an argument on here unless, as in this case, the other poster just simply gives up.

[spurster]

Behind link #1 we have Professor J. D. Aber, PhD. Below are the publications they selected to list on the link your page led to. You'll notice not one on Anthropogenic Climate Change. Not a single one...

Do you have a clue about how science is done? It's pretty clear to me that he is working on understanding one part of the whole picture.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It floats my Spurstalk boat...a little something I tow behind my yacht of a life.

:lol whatevz

[Yonivore]

Do you have a clue about how science is done? It's pretty clear to me that he is working on understanding one part of the whole picture.
Yes, I understand how science is done. And, it's not by "concensus."

Look, I'm just asking for one published, peer-reviewed scientific paper by one (or more) scientist(s) where the hypothesis relates to how man is causing global climate change and then sets about proving that hypothesis, using the scientific method and by providing the underlying factual data.

How hard can that be with all this "concensus?"

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey, if he gives up...

And, I thought you had a good memory...you even said so in that other thread where you're kind of stalkerishly fawning all over me. Personally, I don't recall having declared victory in an argument on here unless, as in this case, the other poster just simply gives up.

no i wasn't stalking you . I was mocking you..

[spurster]

Sorry, Nature is the Newsweek of Science.
Nature is not a reputable journal? Now I know you know almost nothing about science.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nature is not a reputable journal? Now I know you know almost nothing about science.


come on spurster in the conservatives mind only conservative publications are the bastions of truth and objectivity

[Yonivore]

no i wasn't stalking you . I was mocking you..
I see. Well, your mocking required you to retain information about me that verges on obsession. Hell, I don't know what your opinions are about anything from thread to thread. This is a venue in which I respond to the posts in an individual thread based on the face value of the words to which I'm responding.

I mean, to know that I made a characterization about people who vote for the "lesser of two evils" way back when we were talking about the 2004 election is kind of freaky, if you ask me. I don't even remember posting that. I do, however, seem to recall stating an opinion on so-called "moderates" but, I'm not sure it's that to which you're referring.

I would ask you to produce the post and we could dissect how you either mischaracterized what I actually said or we could marvel -- and be a little creeped out -- at how fucking dead on right you were.

You pick. Frankly, I don't care.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see. Well, your mocking required you to retain information about me that verges on obsession. Hell, I don't know what your opinions are about anything from thread to thread. This is a venue in which I respond to the posts in an individual thread based on the face value of the words to which I'm responding.

I mean, to know that I made a characterization about people who vote for the "lesser of two evils" way back when we were talking about the 2004 election is kind of freaky, if you ask me. I don't even remember posting that. I do, however, seem to recall stating an opinion on so-called "moderates" but, I'm not sure it's that to which you're referring.

I would ask you to produce the post and we could dissect how you either mischaracterized what I actually said or we could marvel -- and be a little creeped out -- at how fucking dead on right you were.

You pick. Frankly, I don't care.


having a good memory serves me well...accept when it comes to finding my keys... I don't need to produce it because you and I both know it's true.

[Yonivore]

Nature is not a reputable journal? Now I know you know almost nothing about science.
What you linked to is not a scientific article, authored by scientists and published for peer-review.

If that is the format in which Nature publishes articles then, they're just what I said, the Newsweek of science. Journal publications have a certain format and list authors, references, and data sources. They also generally have a synopsis up front, stating a hypothesis.

I never said Nature was irreputable...just that you didn't link to a scientific paper.

[Yonivore]

having a good memory serves me well...accept when it comes to finding my keys... I don't need to produce it because you and I both know it's true.
Actually, I don't know it's true. But, frankly, I don't see whether or not my saying it has any relevance today.

[Wild Cobra]

How about going to these two threads oblot Global Warming and disput my postings:

Damn Climate Change (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74209)

It's The Sun Dammit (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74717)

[SRJ]

come on spurster in the conservatives mind only conservative publications are the bastions of truth and objectivity

:lol Yeah, that kind of thing doesn't happen with liberals.

[spurster]

I guess someone should inform Nature that their web site should be shittier if they want to be taken seriously.

[Yonivore]

I guess someone should inform Nature that their web site should be shittier if they want to be taken seriously.
Is that your way of saying you can't find a published, peer-reviewed scientific paper authored by scientist(s) that attempts to prove out anthropogenic global climate change?

I wasn't bashing Nature. It's just that you posting that link to Nature magazine didn't really respond to the request for a real live scientific publication by a real live scientist. It was an article about the IPCC report. That's it.

[spurster]

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fgwscience.asp

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/year/2007.html

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fgwscience.asp

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/year/2007.html


but,but hush and whannity said something different.

[RandomGuy]

It'll all seem pretty silly when, in 15 years, the planet is cooling again and those places that have experienced extended growing seasons because of the moderate warming are feeding the planet.


oh man, I hope you are still posting here when that doesn't happen.

I will rub your nose in it. Of course, I will have to create another profile to do that, but hey...

[Yonivore]

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fgwscience.asp
This website begins with a flawed premise:


In recent years, scientists have added considerably to the large body of evidence that shows heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide -- produced mainly from the burning of fossil fuels -- are changing the global climate, raising temperatures and affecting ecosystems around the world. Here we summarize the most significant scientific findings of the past few years.
While it is true the majority of ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 is produced mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, the fact is, 99.883% of all atmospheric CO2 is produced naturally. Therefore, the correct statement would be that the 0.117% of Carbon Dioxide produced by man is principally produced by the burning of fossil fuels. But, this 0.117% is within the range of natural variability of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I also think it's funny how the IPCC and the rest of the "concensus scientists" completely discount the role of atmospheric water vapor -- the principal culprit in the greenhouse effect and a substance to which man contributes approximately 0.001% of all that is present, also well within the natural variability that would be present even if man never existed.


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm


That's a damn long list. Care to pick out the one(s) that hypothesize man is causing global warming and then sets about proving that hypothesis?


http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/year/2007.html

There were a grand total of two papers related to anthropogenic global climate change listed in the long list of papers at this link.

#1
Model-based assessment of the role of human-induced climate change in the 2005 Caribbean coral bleaching event (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2007/sdd0701.html)
Based on a model. See below.

#2
Modeled impact of anthropogenic land cover change on climate (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2007/klf0701.html)


Abstract: Equilibrium experiments with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s climate model are used to investigate the impact of anthropogenic land cover change on climate. Regions of altered land cover include large portions of Europe, India, eastern China, and the eastern United States. Smaller areas of change are present in various tropical regions. This study focuses on the impacts of biophysical changes associated with the land cover change (albedo, root and stomatal properties, roughness length), which is almost exclusively a conversion from forest to grassland in the model; the effects of irrigation or other water management practices and the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide changes associated with land cover conversion are not included in these experiments.

The model suggests that observed land cover changes have little or no impact on globally averaged climatic variables (e.g., 2-m air temperature is 0.008 K warmer in a simulation with 1990 land cover compared to a simulation with potential natural vegetation cover). Differences in the annual mean climatic fields analyzed did not exhibit global field significance. Within some of the regions of land cover change, however, there are relatively large changes of many surface climatic variables. These changes are highly significant locally in the annual mean and in most months of the year in eastern Europe and northern India. They can be explained mainly as direct and indirect consequences of model-prescribed increases in surface albedo, decreases in rooting depth, and changes of stomatal control that accompany deforestation.
First of all, models are not an analytical product of scientific process but a predictive tool based on assumptions. Assumptions that are, many times, severely flawed.

Even so, this particular model-based paper doesn't support anthropogenic climate change but, tends to discount it. No?

It's the sun, stupid.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It's the sun, stupid.

no, deforestation is the likely culprit in this instance.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Even so, this particular model-based paper doesn't support anthropogenic climate change but, tends to discount it. No?

no, it supports the theory that local deforestation causes measurable climate change locally but we can't say for sure that it causes the same measurable climate change on a global level.

[Yonivore]

no, deforestation is the likely culprit in this instance.
That was a tag line. The climate is principally driven by the sun.


no, it supports the theory that local deforestation causes measurable climate change locally but we can't say for sure that it causes the same measurable climate change on a global level.
First of all, the topic is anthropogenic GLOBAL climate change; no one is arguing man can have an affect on his local environment.

Second, the abstract clearly states -- I bolded and painted it red -- ...the model suggests that observed land cover changes have little or no impact on globally averaged climatic variables...

[Oh, Gee!!]

First of all, the topic is anthropogenic GLOBAL climate change; no one is arguing man can have an affect on his local environment.

but you get enough men affecting enough local environments, and you've got a big problem world-wide.


Second, the abstract clearly states -- I bolded and painted it red -- ...the model suggests that observed land cover changes have little or no impact on globally averaged climatic variables...

The observed land cover changes are small sample of the entire globe. Apply the theory that man can cause local changes to his local environment and apply that to all the "local environments" that are being affected by men. I don't see why anyone wouldn't consider the possibility that our actions have a cumulative effect on the globe.

[Yonivore]

but you get enough men affecting enough local environments, and you've got a big problem world-wide.
No, you don't. Such changes don't aggregate or transport and, as soon as you remove the source, they diminish or go away.

You're just pulling crap out of your butt now...kind of like the IPCC.


The observed land cover changes are small sample of the entire globe. Apply the theory that man can cause local changes to his local environment and apply that to all the "local environments" that are being affected by men. I don't see why anyone wouldn't consider the possibility that our actions have a cumulative effect on the globe.
Well, because they don't. The atmosphere and climate are much more complicated than that.

Then, combine that with the fact that we (mankind) currently contribute less than .5% (that's one-half of one percent) of all the known "greenhouse gases" -- a figure well within natural variables and that could be far exceeded by a single volcanic eruption -- and you've got squat.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, because they don't.

This is why I say what's the point in trying to debate with you. It would be different if you were skeptical, unsure, or just not convinced; but you've excluded as a possibility that man's activities lead to changes in the environment globally. Your position is not that we can't be sure or that the evidence doesn't support the theory, but that it's a complete and utter lie. Your mind is made up and closed to any and all evidence that contradicts what you don't want to believe: that man has a responsibility to take care of the planet.

[Yonivore]

This is why I say what's the point in trying to debate with you. It would be different if you were skeptical, unsure, or just not convinced; but you've excluded as a possibility that man's activities lead to changes in the environment globally. Your position is not that we can't be sure or that the evidence doesn't support the theory, but that it's a complete and utter lie. Your mind is made up and closed to any and all evidence that contradicts what you don't want to believe: that man has a responsibility to take care of the planet.
What does man taking care of the planet have to do with my belief there are no anthropogenic causes to global climate change?

I believe man should not pollute because toxic pollutants make localized areas of the planet uninhabitable.

What I don't believe is that reducing our contribution to the mechanism of global climate change from .248% to something less than that is going to have any appreciable impact on global climate. Period.

When you can figure out how to stop a Mount Pinatubo from completely eclipsing our contribution to greenhouse gases in one momentary eruption, then talk to me.

Hell, it's already agreed to -- even by the IPCC concensus scientists -- that even if we strictly adhered to the Kyoto protocol mandates (which, by the way, none of the signatories are doing), we would succeed in dropping global temperatures by approximately .05 degrees Celsius.

Is it really worth the expense? Is it really worth trashing the global economy to make an imperceptible impact on the climate?

I say no.

If we can agree that man contributes no more than .248% of all the constituent gases, in the atmosphere, that cause the greenhouse effect that warms the planet -- and I think the science it there -- then what possible benefit can be gained from draconian measures to reduce what is already an insignificant amount?

I say there is no benefit that outweighs the harm that will be caused by retarding commerce and industry in order to meet these stupid goals.

I was serious about wanting to read a scientific paper that used scientific data to spell out how anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. But, it doesn't exist. Tell me if you ever find it and I'll read it.

[Winehole23]

1350484795852263424