Now isn't it also funny how well historical solar irradiation and historical temperatures line up:
Well RandomGuy, let's see what kind of intellectual honesty you have. What happens if global warming theory is entirely correct, the dire predictions are entirely correct, and we do exactly what the global warming alarmist's propose? That is, switch to solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, biofuels, and other so called friendly "green" energy sources.
I wonder how much more greenhouse gasses the making of ethanol brings? Sure, the burned part has slightly less CO2 than the fossile fuels, but what about the rest of the bio matter that likely rots and makes methane? Not all places capture it you know!
Thousands of scientists aren't lying? Good here's some consensus for you.
http://www.iceagenow.com/31000_scien...ing_claims.htm
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx
What happened to the new ice age that we worried about in the 70's? When will people realize that the earth will warm up and cool off in cycles and there is nothing we can do about it? Global warming is a farce. It is only a way for some people to make money by scaring everyone else.
And in the gaming world, we call these people "Lawful Evil" or some other evil aliognment.
Why don't people see them for the evil they are in real life?
Alignments:
Lawful Evil:
Lawful evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits: while they typically obey their superiors and keep their word (trustworthy), they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, honorable but undiscriminating mercenary types, and soldiers who follow the chain of command but enjoy killing for its own sake.
Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men's Magneto are examples of lawful evil characters. The lawful evil outsiders are known as Baatezu.
Neutral Evil:
Neutral evil is called the "Malefactor" alignment. Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. An example would be an assassin, who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either lawful or chaotic evil characters, since he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.
Complete Scoundrel cites X-Men's Mystique, Sawyer of Lost as neutral evil characters. Yugoloths are the multiversal representatives of neutral evil.
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Name one large organization of scientists that disagrees with the IPCC.
Since you are implying that there is not a consensus of scientists who study the phenomenon that favors AGW theory.
If you cannot name a large group of scientists that disagrees with the conclusions put forth by the IPCC, then you cannot reasonably claim there is not a consensus.
It also begs the question:
"Are all of these scientists really that irrational/illogical/unethical, and you out of the thousands of people who have looked at the data aren't?"
.. and in the gaming world, you are the kind of character who throws a 17 or 18 for intelligence, and a 7 for wisdom. HA!
Hey RG, wasn't there a consensus of scientists that thought the earth
was flat at one time? And that Earth was the center of the universe?
And there was only one guy who disagreed with the later, Galileo, and
he was tried by the Catholics for hearsay.
Seems I also read that during the last "global warming" where
temps were 4-5 degrees higher than now, the earth and mankind
thrived. But I could be wrong.
We mitigate the risk of the worst case scenario.
Further, to be 100% intellectually honest, to show WC how it's done:
We don't eliminate that risk. We could spend all the money switching over, and still face the worst effects of that warming.
The conservative approach would be to mitigate the worst risk as much as is prudent to do so, taking into account the severity of the risk.
To accept such a liberal amount of risk, as WC and the denier camp wants us to do is accepting a much greater degree of risk than I am comfortable with.
Indeed there were Ray. The good thing about science is that the scientific empirical approach will weed out bad theories when new evidence is presented that contradicts those bad theories. The theory that best fits available evidence is generally the most accepted one.
If AGW turns out to truly be a bad theory, then there will be more and more evidence over time that it is a bad theory.
So far, the scientific consensus is that it is the theory that best fits available evidence. We are having a marked positive effect on global average temperatures.
Since no large group of scientists has come forward to challenge that consensus with peer-reviewed scientific papers to my knowledge, I find it prudent to assume that theory is probably correct.
The scientists that say they disagree with the the AGW theory are a rather small minority, who spread their theories not through scientific papers, but through denier websites, much like the 9-11 pseudoscience conspiracy theories do.
Please name a few then.
Surely there is some peer-reviewed science out there that supports your assertions.
What about the evidence to the contrary? Like global cooling for the
past 9 years. And some who say the global warming crowd are using
a flawed computer program. That they cannot reverse the program
and go back to conditions of the past.
What evidence is there that we have warming? Seriously. They
talk of polar bears dying off, yet their population is increasing. The
speak of ice melting and coastal areas flooding, but I have seen none
of that on the gulf coast, have you? Ice is increasing on one pole.
But then they say, well, ice melted faster than ever. Well duh, what
does that mean?
From everything I have seen or read the climate of earth has and will
always change, not by our actions, I just don't think it is possible. Not
when we have mother nature capable of wiping us out in almost one
felled swoop. Like another earthquake in the central part of the U.S.,
which occurred in our historical times, caused the old Mississippi to run
backwards, think we could do that, don't think so. And they say we
are in line for another of the same magnitude.
When they do away with carbon credits, carbon taxes and quit fussing
about carbon is the ruination of the world, oil and coal, which got us to
where we are, then I may take them seriously. But the environmentalist
have a lot of PR work to do with me before I take them seriously.
Somehow I just don't take beetles and spiders as seriously as they
do.
Kinda like smoking will kill you. Well it might, but it doesn't kill
everybody. And if it so bad for people, first and second hand smoke,
why don't we just ban it and solve the problem. Whooops, forgot
about taxes it brings in.....
The evidence to the contrary will be evaluated and debated, as it always is.
As I have stated before, this is not my area of expertise, and I do not have the time to spend gaining enough expertise to make a call about what theory is more reasonable.
Since it is possible to make a decision based on incomplete evidence, and there is a pretty fair possibility that we are seriously f***ing things up, it seems reasonable to take some steps to mitigate the worst of the risks we face.
WC is absolutely convinced that the possbility of the risk is so remote that it isn't worth doing anything about, much like the designer of the anic was convinced that it wouldn't sink so it didn't need as many lifeboats as it had berths.
I would not buy a ticket for a cruise ship that didn't have enough lifeboats, no matter how convinced the designer was that it wouldn't sink, would you?
Hmmm, I thought you voted for Obama? But I could be wrong.
Hmmm, I thought you voted for Obama? But I could be wrong.
Take care, and I have to get back to my bookkeeping client.
One would expect as much. No one who advocates the AGW theory says that global temperatures wasn't affected to a great deal by the sun in the past and even now. We would expect that pre-industrial revolution temperatures were primarily driven by solar output.
This is something of a red herring on your part. AGW theory says that a very significant portion of CURRENT warming trends is due to output of greenhouse gasses from the industrial revolution and onwards.
This in no way contradicts AGW theory about current warming trends does it?
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The article was not about whether or not smog was "confused" with ozone, it was about whether or not it was reasonable to include the savings from avoided health care costs in cost/benefit analysis of new pollution legislation.
Keep your story straight.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92708
Damn. I re-read that thread. I was not very nice to you in that thread. I also didn't give you enough time to address specific points before moving on to others. Hmm.
Here’s a few:
Global Warming Pe ion Project
THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming
The Heidelberg Appeal
Open Kyoto to debate; Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
They have been bought and paid for by politicians, or jobs in jeopardy if they don’t play along.
So, worse case scenario. God is real, so you worship him every day. After all, have to be on the safe side, right? Who wants to go to ?
And how bad do we screw up the economy by being fearful lemmings?
Correct. You tackle the biggest problem first, then assess the rest. Why haven’t we mitigated Asia’s output of coal burning pollution yet? Recently, scientists have concurred that the melting of the ice cap is from soot. Not CO2.
You prefer to be blind of the truth. CO2 is not the problem. Observations of cause and effect are all the proof the alarmists have. This observation ignores the true factors that can be easily proven to have a significant degree, yet you IGNORE the FACTS!
Please show me the empirical proof that shows anthropogenic warming is caused by CO2.
The hypothesis’ within the theory are wrong. They over estimate CO2 and under estimate solar and soot. There is plenty of evidence the primary warming we see is from the sun and soot.
Bull . The consensus you have are of those scientists bought and paid for. There are more who disagree.
The IPCC consensus took the research of hundreds of scientist, then put a political spin on it with just a handful of willing accomplices of the scientist.
That is a wrong assumed fact.
more than 31,000 who signed the Oregon Pe ion? Go ahead. Throw some names out. There are still thousands of respected scientists that know the material who disagree.
The evidence to the contrary is silenced. The media doesn’t carry their words and several who have spoken out have been removed from their jobs as unqualified, because they don’t believe.
Such simple evidence as I laid out?
You mean like our economy when we devote resources to carbon credits and cause energy production to double or more in price?
Only the risk of blaming and trying to control CO2 as the problem. PLEASE STOP IGNORING MY WORDS. I have claimed man’s largest effect if SOOT!
We agree there. Non-sequitur.
If warming can be said to be caused by the sun in the past, why not now?
Can you show me the empirical evidence, or do you just have coincidental cause and effect graphs?
The problem is that we can apply simple algebra to solar radiation. More solar energy means more heat. There can be no reasonable debate to the contrary. Only the lag effects and feedbacks to it. The amplitudes of the graphs are not in alignment, but the timeframes are of general warming and cooling. There can be no reasonable debate on CO2 warming until the alarmists realistically assess the effects of solar changes and soot. Until then, they are simple fools who refuse to believe anything that threatens their ideas.
Keep one thing in mind that we should all be able to agree on. The sun is the primary source of heat. Gravitational forces are a very small part. All other factors are feedbacks to the system.
If we go back to Al Gore’s chart:
Then apply a mathematical interpretation to known mathematics:
The applied math to his chart showing a 6 C CO2 warming effect at 280 ppm then a 7 C warming effect at 560 ppm tops out at 7.2 C when the atmosphere is at warming saturation of CO2. This same chart shows about a 0.6 C (6.6 C CO2 warming) increase from the increased CO2 levels.
How much damage has the 0.6 C increase done? Assuming Al Gore and the IPCC are correct, how much damage will the 1.2 C increase do if we pass 1000 ppm? It's still not as warm as when England grew Grape crops for wine, or when Greenland had farms and mines.
mmm sounds sciency enough. Also sounds eerily reminiscent of the pe ion signed by the adherents of the 9-11 controlled demolition theory.
I wonder if we can get something truly objective from people who are so obviously anti-UN.
But hey the science seems reasonable enough at first glance.
Riddle me this:
How persistent is CO2 released from burning fossil fuels?
Once released into the atmosphere, how long will it stick around?
I don't remember the estimate. It does mix with the natural CO2 and sink along with it. It just becomes part of the carbon cycle.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-28-2008 at 02:31 PM.
It seems to be to be a pretty pertinent bit.
The same graphs you show in support shows the amount of fossil fuels burned in the last 20-50 years is greater than the entire 150 before it.
By your own admission, using one of your links here:
Shows that we are burning roughly 4 times the amount of carbon now that we were in 1950.
If carbon remains in the atmosphere for 100+ years that means that we will put, if current levels simply remain the same, more carbon into the atmosphere in the next 10 years than in the entire period 1850-1950. A good chunk of this is CO2, which you have acknowledged as having caused around 10% of recent warming trends.
If we do nothing, and continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate far higher than it is absorbed, then is it at least plausible that we will see higher temperatures?
CO2 by itself won't do a heckuva lot, but if we warm up large areas of the planet just enough, we have the potential for massive methane releases.
If we, though our CO2 emissions warm the globe just a bit more than natural, and trigger massive methane releases, then what happens WC?Methane clathrates and climate change
Main article: Clathrate Gun Hypothesis
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Despite its short atmospheric half life of 7 years, methane has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 21 over 100 years (IPCC, 1996; Berner and Berner, 1996; vanLoon and Duffy, 2000). The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits has been hypothesized as a cause of past and possibly future climate changes. Events possibly linked in this way are the Permian-Triassic extinction event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Climate scientists such as James Hansen expect that methane clathrates in the permafrost regions will be released as a result of global warming, unleashing powerful feedback forces which may cause runaway climate change that cannot be controlled.
Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released[23][24][25][26][27] with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times above normal[28][29].
Sounds an awful lot like the Global Warming Pe ion Project doesn't it?
Ever look up where that "peer reviewed" science was orginally published?
Go down to the bottom of their "peer reviewed" article:
http://www.pe ionproject.org/gwdat...icle_HTML.html
Look at the first couple of places it was published.
"Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons"
Sound pretty science-y doesn't it?
The Journal changed its name a few years back. It used to be called the Medical Sentinel. Here is the archive:
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/issues.html
Again, "Medical Sentinel" almost sounds like a science journal.
Let's take a look at some other articles that were featured in the same magazine about the time (1998) that the orginal "peer reviewed" article came out.
Statism Clears the Field by Vernon L. Goltry, MD
Voter Requirements by Curtis W. Caine, MD
There's Only One Way to End IRS Abuses by Harry Browne
GOP Wins One for the Gipper!
Can I trust this publication to give me objective, non-politicized science WC?
What did the "peer review" consist of for this article?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
