View Poll Results: What is your opinion on global warming?

Voters
168. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's happening and we're to blame

    85 50.60%
  • It's happening but it's not man made

    20 11.90%
  • It's not even happening, except according to the cycles of nature

    46 27.38%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    17 10.12%
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123456 12 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1657

Thread: Still Believe in Global Warming?

  1. #101
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    And virtually everything we know about climatology pretty clearly indicates that raising CO2 will raise the temperature of the Earth, on average. It's a matter of how big that affect is that they're still trying to pin down, as well as the finer details like which areas will have the biggest changes, positive/negative feedback cycles and the like.
    Thank you for posting this. The bold portion is the most important point in this entire debate, and the point that nobody can come to a consensus on.

    No sensible person would deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But even with the best data available, nobody knows if humans produce enough CO2 to make any discernible difference in our planet's climate or not. And even if it does make a significant difference, nobody can determine if that would actually be problematic or not.
    Now you're totally misconstruing things. While there's debate on the exact effects of the increased concentration of CO2, there's little debate that anthropogenic climate change is a reality and that the magnitude of those effects will only increase as we continue to produce ever more CO2. The vast, vast, vast majority of climatologists (not meteorologists, not geologists, not physicists) are in pretty good agreement that absolutely humans are quite capable of altering our atmosphere's chemistry enough to have large, noticeable affects on our climate and that those effects are resulting in numerous natural phenomena all over the world (glaciers melting, migration patterns changing etc).

    This isn't an issue where we need to sit back for another couple decades and "firm things up" before taking action. It's obvious that action needs to be taken now, and that the longer we wait the more difficult the problem becomes. That doesn't mean we should give anyone carte blanche to spend any amount of money necessary, there's compelling arguments that adapting to the new climate may be more feasible than trying to turn back the clock. But doing nothing and continuing to emit the CO2 that we are right now isn't a viable option in the long term.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 20-01-2010 at 11:55 AM.

  2. #102

    Default

    A BBC weather forecaster has suggested that the Met Office's super-computer has a 'warm bias' which has stopped it predicting bitterly cold spells like the one we have just endured.

    Paul Hudson said the error may have crept into the computer's climate model as a result of successive years of milder weather.

    His claim was rejected by the Met Office but other experts said there could be flaws in the system, which was first developed 50 years ago.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0dBY7ytlW
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eatherman.html

  3. #103

    Default

    ^It makes you wonder how the climate scientists will react if for the next 5 or 6 years we go into a cold spell. Must be a terrifying prospect for them. Will they "admit" they were wrong? Or say it is a "short term effect"? Or perhaps come up with another theory as to how Co2 damages the environment (other than temperature)?

  4. #104

    Default

    Self preservation is man's strongest instinct. I'm sure they'll think of something to cover their own butts. They'll probably try to tell us it only seems colder.

  5. #105

    Default

    ^That's it, they will manipulate the data to retain faith in the "religion".

  6. #106
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^^^This is why Global warming is a bad term. Cooling could be just as bad...hence climate change.
    ----

  7. #107

    Default

    ^so no matter what happens, even a slight long term decline in temperature that matches historical norms, the theory cannot be falsified, the scientists will be right. It isn't a science then.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. — Albert Einstein
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-01-2010 at 01:52 PM.

  8. #108
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    There are plenty of other cycles and signals that can "swamp" a long term, gradual warming trend caused by humans. El Nino/La Nina, North Atlantic Oscillation, various other cycles, volcanoes or other natural events and of course good old natural variability. And nothing about climatology says that the temperature has to warm everywhere equally, there's a ton of regionality expected.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    ^^^This is why Global warming is a bad term. Cooling could be just as bad...hence climate change.
    Of course, it's "climate change" now.

    You never miss if you can just keep moving the goal posts.

  10. #110

  11. #111

  12. #112

    Default

    This pretty much sums up the article nicely...
    "It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers," Hasnain adds.

    Indeed it is not. As Ed Morrissey noted Sunday:

    So the IPCC read the interview in which Hasnain speculated — with no scientific evidence whatsoever — that a portion of the Himalayan glaciers would melt at some indeterminate time, and concluded that the entirety of the massif would evaporate by 2035. They never even bothered to wait for Hasnain’s report to see exactly what he claimed, and why. Instead, they just inflated the unsubstantiated speculation with a zeppelin of greenhouse-gas hyperbole and stated categorically that the entire glacial structure in the Himalayas would be gone in a quarter-century.

    This is what passes for science at the UN. This is what passes for science at the IPCC. It’s also what passed for science at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

    And AGW hysterics like to call skeptics deniers, in what is clearly the most obvious case of projection on the global stage.


    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz0dGY0JAjw

  13. #113
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Hey look, we can all post random articles that talk about climate change.

    http://atlanticfarmfocus.ca/index.cfm?sid=320337&sc=586

  14. #114
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Probably better to post something with some actual science in it:

    2009 Temperatures by Jim Hansen

    The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, in the surface temperature analysis of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The Southern Hemisphere set a record as the warmest year for that half of the world.
    What about the claim that the Earth’s surface has been cooling over the past decade? That issue can be addressed with a far higher degree of confidence, because the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements becomes much smaller when averaged over several years. The 2‐sigma error in the 5‐year running‐mean temperature anomaly shown in Figure 2, is about a factor of two smaller than the annual mean uncertainty, thus 0.02‐0.03°C. Given that the change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is about 0.2°C over the past decade, we can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler.

  15. #115
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    It's funny, because if someone were to try to write off all of biology because of that South Korean scientist faking cloning results they would have been laughed at. Yet that's exactly what people are attempting to do finding errors in reports or data. That's great that they're finding these things, that's how science should work. But the PR campaign they're waging around these problems that represent such a small fraction of the total scientific understanding of our climate is basically trying to say that all climate science is wrong because a couple reports contained errors or some data was withheld. It's ridiculous.

  16. #116
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Probably better to post something with some actual science in it:

    2009 Temperatures by Jim Hansen

    The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, in the surface temperature analysis of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The Southern Hemisphere set a record as the warmest year for that half of the world.
    What about the claim that the Earth’s surface has been cooling over the past decade? That issue can be addressed with a far higher degree of confidence, because the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements becomes much smaller when averaged over several years. The 2‐sigma error in the 5‐year running‐mean temperature anomaly shown in Figure 2, is about a factor of two smaller than the annual mean uncertainty, thus 0.02‐0.03°C. Given that the change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is about 0.2°C over the past decade, we can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler.
    and if you could present the same figures for venus and mars, then you would be able to have a relatively accurate idea of how much of that change was caused on earth - by mankind or not - and how much was external and beyond our control (not that we shouldn't still be addressing the consequences regardless). i think that one of the problems with many of the models and many of the assumptions behind what we are constantly presented with is the lack of inclusion or allowance for externalities.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #117
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Probably better to post something with some actual science in it:

    2009 Temperatures by Jim Hansen

    The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, in the surface temperature analysis of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The Southern Hemisphere set a record as the warmest year for that half of the world.
    What about the claim that the Earth’s surface has been cooling over the past decade? That issue can be addressed with a far higher degree of confidence, because the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements becomes much smaller when averaged over several years. The 2‐sigma error in the 5‐year running‐mean temperature anomaly shown in Figure 2, is about a factor of two smaller than the annual mean uncertainty, thus 0.02‐0.03°C. Given that the change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is about 0.2°C over the past decade, we can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler.
    and if you could present the same figures for venus and mars, then you would be able to have a relatively accurate idea of how much of that change was caused on earth - by mankind or not - and how much was external and beyond our control (not that we shouldn't still be addressing the consequences regardless). i think that one of the problems with many of the models and many of the assumptions behind what we are constantly presented with is the lack of inclusion or allowance for externalities.
    Sorry, but no, it's not that simple. Mars and Venus have different orbits than earth, with different cycles in those orbits, different axial slants, different moons influencing their orbit and so on. Not to mention they most likely have their own climate cycles similar to ours, like El Nino. It's very possible that the Earth could be warming while Venus cooled and Mars warmed, while absolutely everything else remained equal (no human OR solar climate forcing) because of some arcane orbital cycles, geologic activity, or good old natural variability.

    Here's an interesting link that uses climate models with and without natural and human forcings and compares them to what actually happened: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

    The reality is climate models for the most part are quite accurate, predictive, and tend to correlate with each other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...global_warming

    That's not to say they're perfect, by any means.

    Solar forcing is not having an appreciable effect on climate change currently, and we don't need to compare Earth to Mars or Venus to know that, nor would doing so necessarily tell us much of anything about what the Sun was doing: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

    Quote Originally Posted by New Scientist
    But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).


    Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .

    Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.
    Another article that specifically talks about Mars and climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ng-on-mars.htm

    The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began. So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.

    Not to mention, we don't have much for long term records of the temperature of other planets, nor any easy way of measuring it currently in such a manner so that the results would be statistically useful for comparison to Earth. There's so much statistics involved in climate science it's no surprise the biggest thorn in the side of climatologists has been a statistician finding errors in their methodology.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 21-01-2010 at 10:46 AM.

  18. #118
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    just because one thing may be incorrect in the research, doesn't mean the whole idea of climate change is thrown out the roof and is a "stupid" idea.
    ----

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    just because one thing may be incorrect in the research, doesn't mean the whole idea of climate change is thrown out the roof and is a "stupid" idea.
    No, but it does create some trust issues, wouldn't you say?

  20. #120
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    and if you could present the same figures for venus and mars, then you would be able to have a relatively accurate idea of how much of that change was caused on earth - by mankind or not - and how much was external and beyond our control (not that we shouldn't still be addressing the consequences regardless). i think that one of the problems with many of the models and many of the assumptions behind what we are constantly presented with is the lack of inclusion or allowance for externalities.
    I'm not claiming any cause here. Just that this guy has data that shows are not in a cooling period this decade. This guy presents his facts without claiming it is all human caused, but does talk about his personal belief that climate change is human caused at the end of the article.

  21. #121
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    just because one thing may be incorrect in the research, doesn't mean the whole idea of climate change is thrown out the roof and is a "stupid" idea.
    No, but it does create some trust issues, wouldn't you say?
    Not really, no. This is how science works. As our understanding advances, sometimes people make mistakes our outright fabricate things for their own personal gain. Thankfully that's what peer review and public scrutiny are for. It looks like in this case, the claim was included without even being properly supported or sourced, which is obviously a big no no. However considering the sheer number of scientists and bureaucrats involved in the IPCC (it's in the thousands), it's not a surprise that something like this managed to slip through the cracks.

    Again, that doesn't mean that the entire report or science of climatology is wrong or that there's some sort of conspiracy at play. It means the authors are human and they screwed up. You can find errors and outright fabrications like this and far more serious in pretty much any subject of scientific study. The only difference is that climatology is arguably the most politicized aspect of science right now.

  22. #122
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    just because one thing may be incorrect in the research, doesn't mean the whole idea of climate change is thrown out the roof and is a "stupid" idea.
    No, but it does create some trust issues, wouldn't you say?
    No more so than when an engineer or architect makes a mistake on a drawing, or your Grammar Wizard makes a mistake in their grammar.

  23. #123
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Hey look, we can all post random articles that talk about climate change.

    http://atlanticfarmfocus.ca/index.cfm?sid=320337&sc=586

    Nobody said you could not.These guys out and out lied( in my link) they received the noble peace prize, and they are a bunch of liars.I think we simply follow the money. I am not about carbon taxes and stupid carbon credits.I can be green, light bulbs cleansers, recycle etc, I think we have been unkind to mother earth. But the stories that dispels climate change( that was global warming) gets no media at all.
    The biggest sham of all, is that buffoon gore! ugh

  24. #124
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    These guys out and out lied( in my link) they received the noble peace prize, and they are a bunch of liars.I think we simply follow the money. I am not about carbon taxes and stupid carbon credits.I can be green, light bulbs cleansers, recycle etc, I think we have been unkind to mother earth. But the stories that dispels climate change( that was global warming) gets no media at all.
    The biggest sham of all, is that buffoon gore! ugh
    The made a mistake, something a lot of professionals do, and are admitting their mistake once it has been pointed out to them.

    That's different than lying.

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    2009 Temperatures by Jim Hansen
    Didn't he die after making the muppets?

    It isn't easy being green.

    Last edited by moahunter; 21-01-2010 at 11:34 AM.

  26. #126
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    These guys out and out lied( in my link) they received the noble peace prize, and they are a bunch of liars.I think we simply follow the money. I am not about carbon taxes and stupid carbon credits.I can be green, light bulbs cleansers, recycle etc, I think we have been unkind to mother earth. But the stories that dispels climate change( that was global warming) gets no media at all.
    The biggest sham of all, is that buffoon gore! ugh
    The made a mistake, something a lot of professionals do, and are admitting their mistake once it has been pointed out to them.

    That's different than lying.
    The one climatologist that was talking about the glaciers, refutes he ever said it.To me, that's called lying, your opinion must differ

  27. #127
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    The one climatologist that was talking about the glaciers, refutes he ever said it.To me, that's called lying, your opinion must differ
    You claimed "they are a bunch of liars" when it may have been one guy? (which guy are you talking about exactly?)
    There are oven 2500 contributors to the IPCC report, and none of the report is actual research, just a compilation of peer-reviewed research.

    And they included something they should not have. That's not a lie.

  28. #128

    Default

    It's a big problem when the official reports from the IPCC, whom the nations of the UN trust, are used as evidence to enact legislation, when the IPCC reports contain conclusions based upon false evidence.

    Here's more on that: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6994774.ece

    The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”
    I think we can officially put this whole thing to bed now. No Cap & Trade, no other economy-crippling do-nothing ideas.


    Now, this isn't to say we shouldn't be researching into newer, more efficient and cleaner sources of energy. Everyone wants that. But enough of the breathless chicken little crap.

  29. #129
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    It's a big problem when the official reports from the IPCC, whom the nations of the UN trust, are used as evidence to enact legislation, when the IPCC reports contain conclusions based upon false evidence.

    Here's more on that: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6994774.ece

    The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”
    I think we can officially put this whole thing to bed now. No Cap & Trade, no other economy-crippling do-nothing ideas.
    I simply don't see how a single error can cause you to throw out an entire report. Was the entire report hinged on this single piece of information?

    I mean I agree, cap& trade and economy-crippling do-nothing ideas are stupid, but the IPCC report doesn't say, "Thou shalt do cap and trade!" it's just claiming that global warming is happening.

    Now, this isn't to say we shouldn't be researching into newer, more efficient and cleaner sources of energy. Everyone wants that. But enough of the breathless chicken little crap.
    But if we have the technology and the knowledge to do things now, but don't because its more effort, or operating costs and capital costs are separated out and we don't get life cycle costs of things what should we do?

  30. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    There are oven 2500 contributors to the IPCC report, and none of the report is actual research, just a compilation of peer-reviewed research.

    And they included something they should not have. That's not a lie.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102737_pf.html

    Right, there definitely weren't any emails going back and forth discussing how to "fix" data, or how to spin conflicting info. Definitely not. And certainly not enough to force the head of the CRU to step down. Nope. No story here!

    You can still believe in human-caused global warming, that's fine. But to so blithely ignore something like this says a lot about your interests - and how they do not lie in finding the truth.

    Also, considering they keep beating the now-debunked "peer reviewed" status of everything, surely they would not have destroyed or hid all the raw temperature data, right? I mean, to peer review something it must be there in its pure form, not in the "value added" form it was morphed into.

    "Value added" by whom, and to what end?

    "Peer reviewed" indeed.

  31. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    But if we have the technology and the knowledge to do things now, but don't because its more effort, or operating costs and capital costs are separated out and we don't get life cycle costs of things what should we do?
    Certainly not any of the radical measures and wealth transfer that the "green" activists are pushing, which is what I really object to.

    You know, things like sandbagging the economy (Cap & Trade), global wealth redistribution ("Climate Justice") and things of that nature.

    It's not coincidence that a lot of the people screaming the loudest have a financial stake in the outcome. Does anyone remember NBC's "green week" where they push Global Warming in all of their prime time shows? Wait a minute... isn't NBC owned by GE, who is pushing HARD for climate legislation to be passed and stands to gain billions? Shouldn't THAT raise some eyebrows? Really, what are the odds?

  32. #132
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102737_pf.html

    Right, there definitely weren't any emails going back and forth discussing how to "fix" data, or how to spin conflicting info. Definitely not. And certainly not enough to force the head of the CRU to step down. Nope. No story here!

    You can still believe in human-caused global warming, that's fine. But to so blithely ignore something like this says a lot about your interests - and how they do not lie in finding the truth.

    Also, considering they keep beating the now-debunked "peer reviewed" status of everything, surely they would not have destroyed or hid all the raw temperature data, right? I mean, to peer review something it must be there in its pure form, not in the "value added" form it was morphed into.

    "Value added" by whom, and to what end?

    "Peer reviewed" indeed.
    From Post #85 I wrote "What I remember from 'climategate' is that one side of the issue has claimed some sort of conspiracy, that anti global warming articles are being kept out. I can't say I've read all of the information, in context (have you?) but I do know that without reading something in context (which is pretty tough to have, as these are emails, a lot of context gets left out) you can only try and reason out a meaning. If you're biased (ie, anti global warming) you'll read all these emails with tinted glasses."

    Posting links of a small news article without any actual meat to it is hardly evidence. Here's something with some actual meat: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

    Or here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...im-cobbs-view/

    I also said in Post #85 that I do not know if we are experiencing global warming, or we are, that it is caused by humans, but I do know that those that totally disregard all the science because of a few new articles or biased sources on the internet, are frustrating, and worth providing an opposing viewpoint too.

  33. #133

    Default

    I generally don't believe in conspiracy theories, but regarding this link I posted earlier:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-data/

    NASA keeps an incredible amount of data, yet despite the law, refuses to disclose it. That is what happened to the CRU - and from everything I have been able to read, it appears that it turned out they didn't want to disclose their own data because they had either lost the raw, un-"Value Added" data or had simply discarded it.

    So yeah, since they refuse to be "peer reviewed" on the matter, are we even sure of anything? Temperature measurement is at the very heart of the concept of global warming, and if what we thought we knew turns out to be less certain than we once thought, why then should we steam head-long into changing absolutely everything we do about everything?

    The Little Boy already cried wolf in the 70's with the whole "global cooling" thing, and apparently they're doing it again, from now the other end. In 30 years, not only have we managed to stop the cooling trend, but warm it up too? Wow, the power we wield!

  34. #134
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    The Little Boy already cried wolf in the 70's with the whole "global cooling" thing, and apparently they're doing it again, from now the other end. In 30 years, not only have we managed to stop the cooling trend, but warm it up too? Wow, the power we wield!
    It's okay to remain skeptical, but you seem like you have already made up your mind. But you also seem to have not done a whole lot of research into things like "global cooling".

  35. #135

    Default

    I was actually trying to make that last paragraph sound like it was absolutely dripping with sarcasm.

    I have only made up my mind that the UN climate change council seems to be a bunch of people whose goal is to push a political and/or economic agenda that's based on falsified information, propaganda, and the manipulation of media to make the average jane and joe fearful of weather changes on planet Earth, which at most appear to be utterly inconclusive, or at worst completely manipulated out of cherry-picked and "value-added" data under teh guise of "peer review". That, or the UN climate change council is nothing but a platform for people like Hugo Chavez (who recently devalued their currency again), who used the Copenhagen summit as a medium to espouse socialism.

    So much trust has been lost, I am surpirsed more people aren't furious at them.

    When even the IPCC (the figurehead of the entire movement, and the apex of alarmist's appeal to authority) says "Hmmm, it appears we may not have been right," perhaps it's time to stop taking man-made global warming as absolute truth.

    And I want to make clear that I too am all for lots of research into newer, more efficient energy sources. There's no reason that in 2010 we're using essentially the same motor technologies that were used 100 years ago. But that's not to say that we need to impose idiotic carbon taxes, the asinine "cap and trade" nonsense, or any other plan that would bankrupt our economies without having any effect on the questionable concept of human-caused global warming.

  36. #136
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Then we agree, we should be doing better, not because we're scared of global warming, but because it is the right thing to do.

  37. #137

    Default

    More dirt on the IPCC corpse:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...disasters.html

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed in 2007 that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather related events since the 1970s", suggesting that part of the increase was down to global warming.

    But the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim was allegedly not peer reviewed or published by the time the report was issued. When it was eventually published in 2008, it came with the caveat: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses".

  38. #138

    Default

    Interestingly, even if global warming does prove to be true, it seems we can realtivley cheaply apply some "sun-block" into the atmosphere, per a Calgary scientist:

    http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/s...scientist-says

    The "geoengineering" of our atmosphere could involve shooting sulphur particles into the stratosphere to refract sunlight back into space, and creating low-altitude clouds using particles of sea salt.
    I have long felt that scientists, not the environmental movement, with find the solutions if we do ever end up with a problem that warrants action.

  39. #139
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ It seems to me that if inadvertent results of human actions are responsible for global warming, human actions with unknown inadvertent results are not going to be the solution. It's like the old get a cat to catch the mouse, but then get a dog to catch the cat, then get a bear to catch the dog, get a wolf to catch the bear, etc.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  40. #140

    Default

    ^ye of little faith in science. I trust scientists a lot more than activists, and this solution (if a solution is ever needed) is potentially much cheaper than reducing carbon emissions.

    Planning is essential with global cooling technologies, he says, because they hold the promise of being much faster and cheaper than carbon emission cuts in stemming global warming, which could tempt countries to unilaterally deploy them as climate change affects their populations, instead of abiding by established international norms that research could create.

  41. #141
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Somehow I'm doubting your faith in science and scientists...

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^That's it, they will manipulate the data to retain faith in the "religion".
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^so no matter what happens, even a slight long term decline in temperature that matches historical norms, the theory cannot be falsified, the scientists will be right. It isn't a science then.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. — Albert Einstein
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^It makes you wonder how the climate scientists will react if for the next 5 or 6 years we go into a cold spell. Must be a terrifying prospect for them. Will they "admit" they were wrong? Or say it is a "short term effect"? Or perhaps come up with another theory as to how Co2 damages the environment (other than temperature)?
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    How can the IPCC even hold any credibility after this?
    Exactly, politicians/activists and even this UN group have been making dire predictions to grab attention / make themselves seem more important, for something that the more we learn, the less significant it turns out it is, at least in the short term (from the same article):

    The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.
    If nothing else, what we do seem to be learning is that climate "science" isn't really a science yet. Maybe it will be one day, but right now based on the various predictions that get changed every other day, it is in total infancy with little accuracy or accountability. Certainly not something to make fundamental economic changes on that impact peoples lives, and certainly not something to be treated with religious like zeal.
    I'm not skeptical that science will save us, I'm skeptical that technology can. Science can tell us what we're doing wrong so we can stop doing it. Technology just keeps trying to stay the course in the hopes that further technology will solve the problems of today's technology, not unlike a self-consuming snake.
    Last edited by RTA; 28-01-2010 at 03:10 PM.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  42. #142
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Peachland
    Posts
    1,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Interestingly, even if global warming does prove to be true, it seems we can realtivley cheaply apply some "sun-block" into the atmosphere, per a Calgary scientist:

    http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/s...scientist-says

    The "geoengineering" of our atmosphere could involve shooting sulphur particles into the stratosphere to refract sunlight back into space, and creating low-altitude clouds using particles of sea salt.
    I have long felt that scientists, not the environmental movement, with find the solutions if we do ever end up with a problem that warrants action.
    Lots of stock piles of sulphur we can't sell/give away fast enough from oilsands heavy oil processing and other sour gas processing.

  43. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glasshead View Post
    Lots of stock piles of sulphur we can't sell/give away fast enough from oilsands heavy oil processing and other sour gas processing.
    That's a very good thought, those big piles of sulphur that the can't even give away. Maybe the Oil Sands producers should look at ways to fire it up into the upper atmosphere to offset the supposed climate impact of the Co2 they emit, sort of a perfect neutral impact cycle?
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-01-2010 at 03:36 PM.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ Somehow I'm doubting your faith in science and scientists...
    Ha, my suggestion was that climate science and the theory of climate change, is not real science (not falsifiable, as any change will confirm the theory). Firing off sulphur into the atmosphere is a bit more interesting though, but I do think we should wait and see if it is needed first (I suspect it may not be - do we really want to make Alberta colder?).
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-01-2010 at 03:37 PM.

  45. #145
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default


    Why do we come up with solutions to the symptom instead of the cause?

  46. #146

    Default

    ^because we can't necessarily control the cause. Let's say the cause is that the sun starts warming up. If we think the current climate is worth preserving ahead of a new one for some economic or other reason, then technology like this could be quite useful. To me, this is where climate "science" really should try to get to, the ability to control the climate to create benefit.

  47. #147
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    If we're not causing it, then we sure as hell shouldn't be fixing it either. Do we really think we'd be able to control climate to a fine enough degree that we wouldn't make things WORSE?

    If we can't agree on what is causing whatever is or is not happening, do we really think we'd be able to predict and model the changes we'd be able to affect?

    If climate were that easy, it wouldn't be a big debate about what is happening, let alone science to control it.

  48. #148

    Default

    ^So if the climate is changed by "natural" causes (and we assume humans and what we do is not natural), then it is "good climate change", but if it is changed (or maintained in some state) by "unnatural" humans it is "bad climate change"? I'm not so sure that philosophy is "scientific" or "moral", but I guess we will agree to disagree.
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-01-2010 at 05:26 PM.

  49. #149
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ If we are not responsible for climate change, then who are we to try and muck with the natural order of things? But if we are responsible, then who are we to continue mucking with the natural order of things?
    Strathcona City Separatist

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    who are we to try and muck with the natural order of things?
    Mucking with "natural order" of things to suit our needs is how we flourish and progress as a species. Just because something is "natural", doesn't mean it is automatically good. It's not "natural" to change the landscape to grow and harvest food on farms, but we do and we benefit immensely. It's not "natural" to manufacture things like vaccines and antibiotics to reduce the health burden of infectious diseases, but it reduces preventable deaths and suffering.

    And I will argue until I am blue in the face that "mucking" with nature to feed people and improve our comfort and quality of life is far more important than living the "natural" way, suffering from things like all the "natural" infectious diseases, "natural" weather disasters, and "natural" droughts and famines. Technology is the reason we can live better and more comfortably than at any time in human history.

  51. #151
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ But when that mucking about disrupts a natural system so much that it may result in more natural disasters or in areas that don't normally experience them, or may result in food or water shortages, etc., we aren't improving anything for ourselves.

    That to me is the biggest thing about this debate that bothers me: why are we willing to take that kind of risk when we don't have to?
    Strathcona City Separatist

  52. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    That to me is the biggest thing about this debate that bothers me: why are we willing to take that kind of risk when we don't have to?
    If you are referring to producing carbon dioxide, we do have to take that risk, or we have a whole bunch of other risks.

    I would argue that there is far more risk to having problems if we decide to make a radical shift in the way we produce and use energy. Even worse, if we decide to pursue do-nothing "feel good" ideas like carbon credits and cap-and-trade programs which could lead to destruction of global economy and produce massive unemployment and world wide recessions, leading to more starvation and homelessness than any type of global warming (sorry, "climate change") could ever do.

  53. #153
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ I'm definitely against the feel-good-but-ultimately-duzzendonuthin programs, but I don't agree that we absolutely have to take the risk and do nothing but stay the course (which is where we're at now); there is a lot that we can do now to start reducing that risk, and there is no reason that it cannot be economical to do so (creating new industries, new jobs, etc.)
    Strathcona City Separatist

  54. #154
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    ^Bingo

    (Channeling my inner Ian)

  55. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ there is a lot that we can do now to start reducing that risk, and there is no reason that it cannot be economical to do so (creating new industries, new jobs, etc.)
    Agreed, and that ill happen naturally with market forces. If new technologies are more energy efficient, they will be cheaper, will win in the market, and we will buy them. No need for foreign governments in their uneducated grandure to shove it down our throats when it isn't ready yet though with artificial taxes or caps. Show some patience, technology has taken us from one age to the next, we will move out of fossil fuels provided we don't put the brakes on technological advance by artificially distorting the economy.

  56. #156
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ And you already know why I disagree on the faith in technology point. Technology is great, but it can't fix problems that we don't even want to admit we may have caused. The market works on many levels, but history has shown that it does occasionally need some manual push and pull; the economy of the last few years attest to that.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  57. #157
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,016

    Default

    And yet more news of IPCC lying to us...

    Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen

    The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

    Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologist

    The full story can be found here;
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7009081.ece

  58. #158
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^ye of little faith in science. I trust scientists a lot more than activists, and this solution (if a solution is ever needed) is potentially much cheaper than reducing carbon emissions.

    Planning is essential with global cooling technologies, he says, because they hold the promise of being much faster and cheaper than carbon emission cuts in stemming global warming, which could tempt countries to unilaterally deploy them as climate change affects their populations, instead of abiding by established international norms that research could create.
    As RTA has already pointed out, there's little chance that tinkering with the atmosphere even more will not have just as many, if not more, unintended consequences as pumping out incredible amounts of CO2.

    Not to mention that increasing the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere has plenty of effects outside of changing the climate. Ocean acidification is a huge one. So we'll have to start dumping massive quantities of something else in to the oceans so that the planet's coral reefs don't all collapse, again with unintended consequences.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    As RTA has already pointed out, there's little chance that tinkering with the atmosphere even more will not have just as many, if not more, unintended consequences as pumping out incredible amounts of CO2.
    The amounts aren't "incredible", they are actually minute compared to the total amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere, which is much lower than it it has been in at some points in the past. Over 95% of Co2 emissions are not caused by humans, we are just making a tiny naural blip (and we are natual) on a natural system.

  60. #160
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    As RTA has already pointed out, there's little chance that tinkering with the atmosphere even more will not have just as many, if not more, unintended consequences as pumping out incredible amounts of CO2.
    The amounts aren't "incredible", they are actually minute compared to the total amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere, which is much lower than it it has been in at some points in the past. Over 95% of Co2 emissions are not caused by humans, we are just making a tiny naural blip (and we are natual) on a natural system.
    So you call a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration that is entirely attributable to human activity in the past century or so "a tiny natural blip"?

    Once again, even though 95% of emissions are "natural", those emissions are very nicely balanced by other natural processes. That "tiny" 5% has resulted in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rising as I said by 30% since industrialization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...carbon_dioxide

    As you can see from the chart in that link, the rate of emissions has only really started to go nuts since about 1950. So while we've been cranking out pretty significant quantities for 150 years, the vast majority has come in the past couple decades and that pace looks set to continue for the foreseeable future.

    So no, we aren't a tiny blip. We are quite obviously changing the composition of our planet's atmosphere in significant ways. And there is quite literally no debate about this, there are multiple lines of clear evidence that the increased amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is almost entirely attributable to human activity. Period. I challenge you to find a single credible article or study that claims otherwise. They don't exist.

    If you care to read about the different lines of evidence, you can do so here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ities-updated/
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 01-02-2010 at 02:11 PM.

  61. #161
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,172

    Default

    Umm, not to take sides, but if you source wikipedia in even a high school science paper, chances are good you'll get a fail.

    The second link, I have to admit, I am unsure of this group's credibility. They might well be credible - might well be, well, enough said already.

  62. #162
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Umm, not to take sides, but if you source wikipedia in even a high school science paper, chances are good you'll get a fail.

    The second link, I have to admit, I am unsure of this group's credibility. They might well be credible - might well be, well, enough said already.
    The article is sourced and referenced with a whole whack of legitimate articles and links. Go ahead and prove anything in the article wrong if you'd like. It's established science.

  63. #163
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Umm, not to take sides, but if you source wikipedia in even a high school science paper, chances are good you'll get a fail.

    The second link, I have to admit, I am unsure of this group's credibility. They might well be credible - might well be, well, enough said already.
    While Wikipedia cannot be used as a source in itself, that doesn't invalidate it, particularly where it's own content is sources and cited.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  64. #164
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,016

    Default

    Where there is money, there is crime
    ---
    Phishing Scam Cripples European Emissions Trading
    Der Spiegel Feb 2, 2010
    Trading in CO2 emissions allowances has been hampered in several European countries as a result of a phishing scam.

    Sneaky cyber-thieves have made millions by fraudulently obtaining European greenhouse gas emissions allowances and reselling them. The scam has hampered trading of the credits, which are seen as an important tool in curbing climate change, in several European countries
    ...
    Full story here;
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...675725,00.html

  65. #165

    Default

    Oh look. More scientists admitting it was a scam all along.

    THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT

    A key scientist has conceded that there has been no "statistically significant" rise since 1995

    Monday February 15,2010

    THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

    Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

    The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

    Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

    ...
    Full story at link.
    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214
    Last edited by IKAN104; 16-02-2010 at 04:16 PM.

  66. #166

    Default

    It just keeps piling up, doesn't it? Even their own scientists are turning against them.

    World may not be warming, say scientists

    The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

    In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

    It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

    “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

    These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
    Full story at link
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7026317.ece

  67. #167

    Default

    ^Scientists who have been afraid to speak up, or challenge the "consenus" for fear of being shouted down as being deniers, are finally having the courage to speak up.

    It seems to me like the "science" is trying to break free from the politics, which would be a good thing. A bit scary if our politicians have been making political decisions on the basis of false information though (e.g. the billion odd dollars Alberta is spending on carbon capture). And, terrible timing for Igantieff, who is promising cap and trade.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1469050/

    But there's a third position. Although it's been largely absent from the climate debate, it's shared by a surprising number of experts. They endorse the underlying science, which says that climate change is happening and human activity is a factor. But they also say that threats of imminent catastrophe have been wildly exaggerated. In fact, we don't know much about what might happen in the future, especially when it comes to specifics such as rising sea levels or regional droughts....

    ...But in a weekend BBC interview, he dropped a bombshell. He acknowledged there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995.

    Hello? When other people say that, they're called deniers.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-02-2010 at 04:26 PM.

  68. #168
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    Newsflash, the earth warms up, the earth cools down. Its a cycle kids!


    global warming is a lefty lie, plain and simple!

  69. #169

    Default

    ^ who cares. Reducing your footprint on this earth is still a good idea, regardless if it helps with global warming/cooling.

    Maybe you should watch manufactured landscapes

  70. #170

    Default

    ^but is focusing on reducing carbon emissions the best way to do that? Is the billion dollars to be spent on carbon capture, better than a billion dollars would be, cleaning up a factory in China, or building a new LRT line? Is decimating industry with a cap and trade, better than letting the economy grow, and using the revenue from that growth to invest in cleaner technologies? The politics around climate change is drowning out the real political discussions on the best way to move to sustainable future.

  71. #171
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    The best way to do that is to stop having so many kids!

    Less people = less pollution/less greenhouse gases/less natural resources used etc

  72. #172
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    I've never put too much faith in the idea of Global Warming. We've had indepth weather measurements for, what, fifty years? When you consider various effects on the entire global weather both on the planet and in the solar system (sun spot cycles, for instance) it's very hard to assume a trend based purely upon human interference. Ice cores show that temperatures have swung all over the place and, indeed, the planet seems to be at about the time where a swing to the warmer side of things could happen.

    HOWEVER

    This doesn't mean we still shouldn't be doing all we can to be responsible stewards of the planet. Without various environment 'scares,' would our society have started to change its ways?
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  73. #173
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    Responsible stewards? How about reducing the population?

  74. #174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^but is focusing on reducing carbon emissions the best way to do that? Is the billion dollars to be spent on carbon capture, better than a billion dollars would be, cleaning up a factory in China, or building a new LRT line? Is decimating industry with a cap and trade, better than letting the economy grow, and using the revenue from that growth to invest in cleaner technologies? The politics around climate change is drowning out the real political discussions on the best way to move to sustainable future.
    I said reduce your footprint, not your carbon footprint. Reduce, reuse, recycle, and stop being such consumer whores. Buy Local.

  75. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Responsible stewards? How about reducing the population?
    you first.

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    The best way to do that is to stop having so many kids!
    Or to volunteer to have yourself ground up into fertilizer before you destroy any more of the environment!


  77. #177
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,043

    Default

    As usual, the words were twisted to say something they absolutely didnt: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/7593

    Here's the key part of the interview regarding warming in recent years:
    Question: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
    Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
    In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.
    And for good measure, here's another question and answer, verbatim:
    "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"
    Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

    So in the past 15 years it HAS gotten warmer, but not enough to be equivocal because statistically that's a pretty short period to be looking at. However looking at historical trends it's pretty obvious that warming has been occurring steadily since industrialization, and that mankind is responsible for the majority of that warming. And that the sun is NOT (seriously, that's been laid to rest again and again).


    It's unfortunate that the IPCC is turning out to be a bureaucratic charlie foxtrot, but that doesn't change the underlying science (it is an amalgamation of previous research, and not research in and of itself). There are thousands of (actually!) peer reviewed studies that clearly indicate our climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible, and precisely zero that refute it.

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    There are thousands of (actually!) peer reviewed studies that clearly indicate our climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible, and precisely zero that refute it.
    There are thousands of peer reviewed studies in climate science, I am sure, but there are not thousands of peer review studies that show that humans are largely responsible for climate change. And, further to that, there certainly aren't thousands of studies that quantify the real impact of "climate change", something which seems to be significantly in dispute. It is pretty pathetic when climate bodies try to run up panic (when it seems there is none given the non-statistically significant rate of recent climate change) by resorting to off the cuff, and later shown to be false, quotes about the impact of climate change (e.g. Himalayan glaciers melting).

    Don't you find it interesting that even the "left wing" UK newspapers are challenging the science now? The bubble has popped, lets hope the "denier" rhetoric ends, and scientists can start talking about the results of their science, rather than feel pressure to maintain silence or to manipulate or spin the results, for fear of losing non-industry funding (something they cherish, to the extent they don't want to appear biased).

    It surprises me that people are upset that the science actually shows that climate change probably does not present any immediate threats to our society. This is great news, especially for our economy which currently relies on CO2 emissions. We should be happy about it, there is time to let technology advance, and to focus on other environmental steps, like moving to a more sustainable economy.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-02-2010 at 10:32 AM.

  79. #179

    Default

    Now that the media are all over Vancouver for the Olympics I am surprised none of them have brought up the lack of snow. Bets on to see which countries media links lack of snow to global warming.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  80. #180

    Default

    The fact that most of the USA has experienced one of the most horrible winters ever, shutting down entire cities (including a snowed-out global warming conference in Washington DC) might have something to do with that.

  81. #181

    Default

    ^but it is "undeinable" proof of climate change (just like the climate changes every single day, just like it always has).

  82. #182
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^wrong, climate does not change everyday. weather does.

    the stuff in dc, georgia, texas, and most of the us is more of a result of the el niño than anything. but i wouldn't be surprised with part of it being found to be partly due to climate change. i also wouldn't be surprised if it's found to be 100% el niño.

    global warming is an incorrect term as the phenomena is about changes in the overall climate over an extended period of time. more extremes in both cold and warm, more violent wealther conditions like hurricanes, droughts, and rainstorms. although overall, the phenomena is warming, there has been cooling too.
    ----

  83. #183

    Default

    ^my mistake, weather is up to 2 weeks. Over that, and it is "climate change", something that happens every year, as the climate is a little different every single year (different average temperature, different average snow fall, etc.). But, you can define it different if you average it out over time, to see if there is change. If we go back more than a decade 1995 to 2009, it seems no significant change (per the quote above, despite all those big CO2 increases). Go back a billion years, and lots of change.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-02-2010 at 04:50 PM.

  84. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    although overall, the phenomena is warming, there has been cooling too.
    So... the planet is getting warmer because of greenhouse gases, yet getting colder at the same time because of them.

    Yes, that makes perfect sense.

  85. #185

    Default

    It's the idea of taxing the rest of us on the basis of our "success" that is deceitful.

    All Gore should give back his Nobel Prize.

    I think the guy is a modern pirate.
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  86. #186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    although overall, the phenomena is warming, there has been cooling too.
    So... the planet is getting warmer because of greenhouse gases, yet getting colder at the same time because of them.

    Yes, that makes perfect sense.
    You might find this interesting as well then:

    http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...-all-quot.aspx
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  87. #187
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,016

    Default

    That article references this PDF...

    Interesting
    http://www.probeinternational.org/fi...nkTennekes.pdf

    "“Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned colder during the last five years?"

  88. #188

    Default

    ^the ocean cooling must be a result of all the recent increase in CO2 attributable to the oilsands, musn't it?

  89. #189

    Default

    If you consider the size and extent of the Boreal Forest in Canada, who do you think has the largest Carbon sink in the entire world?
    Makes you wonder who is doing the measurements and what kind of elastic they are using in their rulers.

    Talk about "Carbon offsets"
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  90. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    ...
    "“Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned colder during the last five years?"
    Wouldn't have anything to do with the rate increase of melting of glaciers and ice sheets, would it?

  91. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    ...
    "“Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned colder during the last five years?"
    Wouldn't have anything to do with the rate increase of melting of glaciers and ice sheets, would it?
    At 60 km per hour 92% of a car tire does not touch the ground.
    The same phenomena occurs when you try to take 20 years out of a history spanning billions of years.

    I believe that is called "tunnel vision"
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  92. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dawg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    ...
    "“Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned colder during the last five years?"
    Wouldn't have anything to do with the rate increase of melting of glaciers and ice sheets, would it?
    At 60 km per hour 92% of a car tire does not touch the ground.
    The same phenomena occurs when you try to take 20 years out of a history spanning billions of years.

    I believe that is called "tunnel vision"
    Excuse me?

  93. #193

    Default

    ^it means that if you take a tiny snapshot of years of data, you probably aren't going to get an accurate result.

    The information about ocean temperatures dropping is really a bit scary. If we are entering into a cooling phase, perhaps even another ice age, I wonder if the environmentalists will start asking industry to increase CO2 emissions to preserve the "perfect climate / species" that they consider the current climate to have resulted in?
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-02-2010 at 11:30 AM. Reason: perfect not prefect - spelling

  94. #194
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dawg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    ...
    "“Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned colder during the last five years?"
    Wouldn't have anything to do with the rate increase of melting of glaciers and ice sheets, would it?
    At 60 km per hour 92% of a car tire does not touch the ground.
    The same phenomena occurs when you try to take 20 years out of a history spanning billions of years.

    I believe that is called "tunnel vision"
    ???? you don't have to drive a billion kilometres at 60 km per hour to know when that tire's flat. you pull over to the side of the road with that same phenomena and repair it before you move on. and it doesn't matter whether it's flat because of global warming or a nail or climate change or a screw or a faulty sidewall or poor management of limited resources. we don't need to argue about the root cause of any of those things, we just need to fix the flat as best we can.
    Last edited by kcantor; 19-02-2010 at 11:32 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  95. #195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^it means that if you take a tiny snapshot of years of data, you probably aren't going to get an accurate result.

    The information about ocean temperatures dropping is really a bit scary. If we are entering into a cooling phase, perhaps even another ice age, I wonder if the environmentalists will start asking industry to increase CO2 emissions to preserve the "prefect climate / species" that they consider the current climate to have resulted in?
    Thanks for the input moahunter.
    I am so not into carrying around a blackboard and chalk in order to have a discussion.

    Also, if there is any lesson to be learned here it must be - Trust no one.
    Verify everything.
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  96. #196

    Default

    I believe that is called "tunnel vision"[/QUOTE]
    ???? you don't have to drive a billion kilometres at 60 km per hour to know when that tire's flat. you pull over to the side of the road with that same phenomena and repair it before you move on. and it doesn't matter whether it's flat because of global warming or a nail or climate change or a screw or a faulty sidewall or poor management of limited resources. we don't need to argue about the root cause of any of those things, we just need to fix the flat as best we can.[/QUOTE]

    Great, we seem to have a simple solution at last!

    Here's the data. You can formulate your game plan from this I presume.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G60JKJd7gNo
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  97. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^it means that if you take a tiny snapshot of years of data, you probably aren't going to get an accurate result.

    The information about ocean temperatures dropping is really a bit scary. If we are entering into a cooling phase, perhaps even another ice age, I wonder if the environmentalists will start asking industry to increase CO2 emissions to preserve the "perfect climate / species" that they consider the current climate to have resulted in?
    Let me see if I understand the insinuation. Someone references a newspaper article which both claims vindication of "climate outcast" and indirectly references (I assume) two NASA-based studies, both of which identify five years of ocean cooling. I suggest - as does one of the NASA-study participants - that a plausible cause is glacial melting. Then a seemingly non-sequitur tire analogy apparently suggests that I have tunnel vision (as if I was commenting on climate change.)

    What then, I ask, does that say about claims of the climate outcast's vindication?

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dawg View Post
    Thanks for the input moahunter.
    I am so not into carrying around a blackboard and chalk in order to have a discussion.
    How convenient. I know of some legendary creationists who feel likewise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dawg View Post
    Also, if there is any lesson to be learned here it must be - Trust no one.
    Verify everything.
    Upon your reference to YouTube-based studies, I'm not sure if you're trying to be ironic or if you're simply a natural.

  98. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dawg View Post
    Thanks for the input moahunter.
    I am so not into carrying around a blackboard and chalk in order to have a discussion.
    How convenient. I know of some legendary creationists who feel likewise.
    You have it backwards this time. When people start inventing false data to support a cause (per that video) it is hard not to question the reliability of the science. It seems pretty clear that the climate disaster prophecists are most akin your legendary creationist friends. "Religion provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute certainty that they know the unknowable.".



    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1458206/


    or:

    Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
    By Jonathan Petre

    Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
    There has been no global warming since 1995
    Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0g3DU19iS
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-02-2010 at 10:27 PM.

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    You have it backwards this time. When people start inventing false data to support a cause (per that video) it is hard not to question the reliability of the science. It seems pretty clear that the climate disaster prophecists are most akin your legendary creationist friends. "Religion provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute certainty that they know the unknowable.".

    ...
    Unless you're of the belief that all climate-related data gathering and modelling by all researchers contains a component of falsification, and that there are no peer-reviewable scientific studies, and that there is an inherent and ubiquitous refusal to accept culpability when either error or outright fabrication occurs, then I suggest your comparison lacks merit.

  100. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    You have it backwards this time. When people start inventing false data to support a cause (per that video) it is hard not to question the reliability of the science. It seems pretty clear that the climate disaster prophecists are most akin your legendary creationist friends. "Religion provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute certainty that they know the unknowable.".

    ...
    Unless you're of the belief that all climate-related data gathering and modeling by all researchers contains a component of falsification, and that there are no peer-re viewable scientific studies, and that there is an inherent and ubiquitous refusal to accept culpability when either error or outright fabrication occurs, then I suggest your comparison lacks merit.
    There are only 4 groups doing climate data gathering studies.
    All admit gaps in their data .

    Who would there be to do a "peer" review as you put it other than the guys doing the data analyisis?

    Anyone following the global warming debacles will attest to the fact that scientists are recanting their previous assumptions regarding the data .

    The rest of your remark is difficult to read as if it were scraped from a 2nd year law students pleadings.

    Try to tell us what your position is without the 18th century wordings.
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •