Scientists: 'No question' that man-made warming exists'

[BoneCrusher]

The only way that the lesser nations would do anything of value towards a clean environment would be if they received handouts. Trading concessions, relaxed tariffs, the ability to undercut other country's prices, and such. That would create a shit load of other problems.

The only way to "make" them do it, would be through tough international laws. Which would have to be the reverse of everything I outlined in the previous paragraph. Which would create its share of problems.

It all comes back to the old adage: You can lead a man to water, but you can't make him drink.

What other countries have you been too?

 

[DOMS]

What other countries have you been too?

Just Mexico; and before you say, or imply, that I can't talk about other countries because I've only learned about them, let me ask you this: have you ever been for a walk in the troposphere? If not, you'll need to stop talking about the affects of CO2 on the Earth.

 

[BoneCrusher]

Just Mexico; and before you say, or imply, that I can't talk about other countries because I've only learned about them, let me ask you this: have you ever been for a walk in the troposphere? If not, you'll need to stop talking about the affects of CO2 on the Earth.

Help me understand what you are saying here because right now I don't. And don't be so defensive with me ... I'm not setting you up for some kinda BS attack. I'm more straight forward than that. I understand what the troposphere is ... but why would you ask that question? We all live in the troposphere ... I don't get it.

Maybe you meant the exosphere?

 

[BoneCrusher]

At any rate I've been to a few places in the world and understand the issues from first hand experience dealing with the peeps in their own areas. Watching the polution from Pakistan come rolling up into the Himalayas brings a tear to your eyes ... it actually stings sometimes it's so thick. Those fucktards could care less.

 

[DOMS]

Help me understand what you are saying here because right now I don't. And don't be so defensive with me ... I'm not setting you up for some kinda BS attack. I'm more straight forward than that. I understand what the troposphere is ... but why would you ask that question? We all live in the troposphere ... I don't get it.

Maybe you meant the exosphere?

Yep, I meant exosphere. I shot way too low...

And don't think that belligerent attitude has anything to do with be defensive. I just think it's fun.

 

[DOMS]

At any rate I've been to a few places in the world and understand the issues from first hand experience dealing with the peeps in their own areas. Watching the polution from Pakistan come rolling up into the Himalayas brings a tear to your eyes ... it actually stings sometimes it's so thick. Those fucktards could care less.

Your apparent faith in humanity is...disturbing, to say the least.

 

[BoneCrusher]

Yep, I meant exosphere. I shot way too low...

And don't think that belligerent attitude has anything to do with be defensive. I just think it's fun.

Ohh no I wouldn't wanna imply that you would be ON the defensive in the first place ...

I like to skydive, scubadive . I've seen them high up places. I can comment on them if you choose to use that premise ...

 

[BigDyl]

You skydive?

 

[Decker]

Government grants for the scientists.

As for politicians pushing it--it is a great excuse to claim more power. It's something they can claim to protect the people from.

This is vaguely connected, just demonstrating how politicians can twist things to try and acquire more power/control:

A comment from Hillary Clinton about SEIZING a company's profits. How can this woman get away with saying this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

This is a very sad statement.

Everything, and I mean everything, that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest. From love of family, wife, god...you name it, there's a selfish reason/purpose/goal at the base...even martyrdom is selfish. It's the way of the world.

If pointing out that something is harming us, slowly yet surely, like a silent cancer grows, isn't that a good thing?

If someone takes a further step on marshalling efforts to battle this harmful phenomenon, isn't that also a good thing?

I guess I don't see the downside that you do. Sure, political leaders can go too far in reaching their goals but that's why we have a constitutional system of checks and balances to ensure that lunacy does not follow. Sure that system has failed us for the moment with Bush, but it is catching up.

As for Hillary Clinton--I couldn't hear the YouTube movie--she, as a politician, is answerable to the will of the people.

It is the Oil Industry, which greases the political skids in a manner you or I could not, that is answerable to no one but its own interests.

 

[NeilPearson]

Just keep doing what we've been doing. I know it's fashionable, even among Americans, do talk shit about the US, but we've been cleaning up our act for decades. Just look at how much the pollution level has dropped in L.A. I grew up there, I can see the difference.

... and that was still at the slow end of exponential curve

 

[NeilPearson]

The issues here are not about America but about a global standard hat we all would somehow be required to follow ... that was where I intended to go with my question to you. All this blathering is about more than just the USA and our contributions to the problem.

As the price of technology comes down, others will follow. They always do. Once alternative energies are cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, there won't be much point in sticking with fossil fuels.

 

[NeilPearson]

The only way that the lesser nations would do anything of value towards a clean environment would be if they received handouts. Trading concessions, relaxed tariffs, the ability to undercut other country's prices, and such. That would create a shit load of other problems.

The only way to "make" them do it, would be through tough international laws. Which would have to be the reverse of everything I outlined in the previous paragraph. Which would create its share of problems.

It all comes back to the old adage: You can lead a man to water, but you can't make him drink.

They'll do it when it makes sense for them to do it (see above post)

 

[ALBOB]

Everything, and I mean everything, that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest. From love of family, wife, god...you name it, there's a selfish reason/purpose/goal at the base...even martyrdom is selfish. It's the way of the world.

If pointing out that something is harming us, slowly yet surely, like a silent cancer grows, isn't that a good thing?

If someone takes a further step on marshalling efforts to battle this harmful phenomenon, isn't that also a good thing?

I guess I don't see the downside that you do.

I'm really not into the Global Warming debate, but I'm gonna argue on DOMS' side from an anti-government point of view for just a second. Yes, these are bad things because it seems they're not being brought to light on a purely humanitarian basis. They're being brought to light solely on the basis of said scientists making more money. That's why quite a few people are like DOMS and don't have any faith in the "scientific" proof being offererd. And the downside is having the government step in and say, "Hey look, we found something wrong. Give us more of your money so we can fix it." I know you've seen the government take a lot of your money, but when have you EVER seen the government actually fix something?

 

[DOMS]

I'm really not into the Global Warming debate, but I'm gonna argue on DOMS' side from an anti-government point of view for just a second. Yes, these are bad things because it seems they're not being brought to light on a purely humanitarian basis. They're being brought to light solely on the basis of said scientists making more money. That's why quite a few people are like DOMS and don't have any faith in the "scientific" proof being offererd. And the downside is having the government step in and say, "Hey look, we found something wrong. Give us more of your money so we can fix it." I know you've seen the government take a lot of your money, but when have you EVER seen the government actually fix something?

It's also not just the immediate money. If the scientist isn't PC, then he can be labeled as "bad guy", and "poof" there goes his funding and any appointments.

 

[Decker]

I'm really not into the Global Warming debate, but I'm gonna argue on DOMS' side from an anti-government point of view for just a second. Yes, these are bad things because it seems they're not being brought to light on a purely humanitarian basis. They're being brought to light solely on the basis of said scientists making more money. That's why quite a few people are like DOMS and don't have any faith in the "scientific" proof being offererd. And the downside is having the government step in and say, "Hey look, we found something wrong. Give us more of your money so we can fix it." I know you've seen the government take a lot of your money, but when have you EVER seen the government actually fix something?

There is no such thing as doing something for a purely humanitarian basis. All human action is selfish to some degree. DOMS???s argument is a non-argument applicable to any human endeavor: See, they are cooking the books b/c they are not impartial.

That???s why in questions of science we rely on the empirical and/or demonstrable findings of scientists. For global warming, scientists from all over the world integrate raw data with 1000s of models of the climate to reach their conclusions.

AL isn???t objectivity the essence of truth?

Don???t worry about the scientists???s motivation for acting on global warming and look at their arguments.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/index.cfm

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/climate_change_101/

 

[DOMS]

DOMS???s argument is a non-argument

Wrong. It's quite appropriate. Add to that the fact that you have yet to display clear, viable, proof that humans are affecting global warming. So you blindly place your faith in scientists even when they've neglected to show clear proof, have shown that that susceptible to political and monetary influences. By the way, many of these same scientists were worried about global cooling back in the '70s.

 

[ALBOB]

There is no such thing as doing something for a purely humanitarian basis. All human action is selfish to some degree. DOMS???s argument is a non-argument applicable to any human endeavor: See, they are cooking the books b/c they are not impartial.

Understood and agreed. My argument (and that of DOMS) is that we know going into this argument that thy're not impartial. And that very impartiality is why they shouldn't be trusted until they provide indisputable proof of their hypothesis.

That???s why in questions of science we rely on the empirical and/or demonstrable findings of scientists. For global warming, scientists from all over the world integrate raw data with 1000s of models of the climate to reach their conclusions.

AL isn???t objectivity the essence of truth?

Don???t worry about the scientists???s motivation for acting on global warming and look at their arguments.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/index.cfm

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/climate_change_101/

Understood again and again, I'm not very versed on the Golbal Warming debate, but I see a couple of flaws in your argument:

#1 Models are just that, by definition they can't provide empiricle or demonsterable proof of ANYTHING. They can be rigged to support anything you want.

#2 The data being plugged into the models in what, 100? 200 years old? In terms of global climate that's nothing. You can't prove anything with such a small sampling of data.

 

[Decker]

Wrong. It's quite appropriate. Add to that the fact that you have yet to display clear, viable, proof that humans are affecting global warming. So you blindly place your faith in scientists even when they've neglected to show clear proof, have shown that that susceptible to political and monetary influences. By the way, many of these same scientists were worried about global cooling back in the '70s.

No, your line of argumentation is flawed: since we do not have absolute proof of global warming, it is not happening. And anyone who says otherwise is motivated by greed/self-interest in the hopes of keeping the gravy train that is global warming afloat. Tell me if I paraphrase incorrectly.

Do you have a problem with the theory of gravity too? It is only a theory mostly adhered to by NASA scientists and other so-called "disinterested" parties.

Throughout the millenia there has been a clear correlation between GHGasses and observable temperature. Solar radiation and volcanic emissions are natural drivers of the GHG phenom. Man's industrial activities also drivers of GHG. Scientists worldwide have run 1000s of models that lead to the conclusion that global warming is real, man's industrial behavior is making it worse, the warming is irreversible but can be ameliorated by our activities.

Could these models be wrong? Perhaps. But I???m willing to hold the word of the scientific community over that of bitter critics on this topic.

I ???blindly??? put my understanding into the hours and hours of research that these eminently qualified men of science put into their work. What do you base your conclusions on? Common sense and selfishness right?

What do I care of global cooling back in the 1970s? Perhaps you???d like to dig up some of the Alchemists from the middle ages to kick in on the subject. I hear that Theodoric of York posits that the fiendish works of sprites and fairies are to blame for the warming of our climate???.and cooling too.

 

[DOMS]

No, your line of argumentation is flawed: since we do not have absolute proof of global warming, it is not happening.

Your very first sentence is flawed. There is plenty of proof that global warming is happening. There just isn't any credible proof that man is affecting it.

And anyone who says otherwise is motivated by greed/self-interest in the hopes of keeping the gravy train that is global warming afloat.

So tell me, what do you think my self-interest is? Do you think that I own stock in an oil company? Am I part of the "in" crowd of politicians that sells out to oil corporations? My motivation is none of the above.

Throughout the millenia there has been a clear correlation between GHGasses and observable temperature.

This doesn't exist. Not even on Gore's graph.

I ???blindly??? put my understanding into the hours and hours of research that these eminently qualified men of science put into their work. What do you base your conclusions on? Common sense and selfishness right?

"Blindly" is the correct word. Just because they're scientists doesn't put them above question. Remember, these are the same people that were afraid of global cooling. These are also the same people on whose livelihood depends on others (politicians, educational institutions, etc.).

If the topic were something simple like and not politically (and personally) charged like fabricating new synthetic materials, then the outside pressure would be nil. But on something that so many people have a stake in (for and against), their integrity is questionable. After all, if they piss off the wrong person, there goes their funding.

What do I care of global cooling back in the 1970s?

Like I said, "blindly" was the correct word. You're not even looking. Unlike alchemy, the global cooling theory was was put forward by some the same people who are promoting global warming.

 

[Decker]

Your very first sentence is flawed. There is plenty of proof that global warming is happening. There just isn't any credible proof that man is affecting it.

There are natural and man-made contributors to GHG. Do you dispute this? So man???s adding tons and tons of GHG precursor substances to the atmosphere has no effect? Follow this link:http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/motemp.cfm

So tell me, what do you think my self-interest is? Do you think that I own stock in an oil company? Am I part of the "in" crowd of politicians that sells out to oil corporations? My motivation is none of the above.

I don???t know what motivates you.

This doesn't exist. Not even on Gore's graph.

There are correlations of this all over the joint.
???As can been seen in this figure, throughout the millennia, there has been a clear correlation between carbon dioxide levels and average global surface temperatures.???
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/longco2temp.cfm

"Blindly" is the correct word. Just because they're scientists doesn't put them above question. Remember, these are the same people that were afraid of global cooling. These are also the same people on whose livelihood depends on others (politicians, educational institutions, etc.).

You are shooting the messenger. So you claim that, worldwide, these people are risking their careers, their reputations and their livelihoods by knowingly cooking the books on their findings just for some short term gain? Possible but not likely. My guys are credible. I don't know what resources you rely on for disputing these climatologists....

Like I said, "blindly" was the correct word. You're not even looking. Unlike alchemy, the global cooling theory was was put forward by some the same people who are promoting global warming.

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But please list 3 eminent climatologists guilty of this apparent flip flop.

 

[BigDyl]

One problems with DOMS argument:


The people who have something to gain by the "man has no effect on global warming" argument, could pay the scientists way more money than the other crowd. I mean these are big industry guys, like big oil...

 

[DOMS]

One problems with DOMS argument:


The people who have something to gain by the "man has no effect on global warming" argument, could pay the scientists way more money than the other crowd. I mean these are big industry guys, like big oil...

This isn't a problem. I don't entirely trust them either.

 

[DOMS]

There are natural and man-made contributors to GHG. Do you dispute this? So man???s adding tons and tons of GHG precursor substances to the atmosphere has no effect? Follow this link:http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/motemp.cfm

There are correlations of this all over the joint.
???As can been seen in this figure, throughout the millennia, there has been a clear correlation between carbon dioxide levels and average global surface temperatures.???
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/longco2temp.cfm

The problem with your chart is that it falls apart at the right edge. The correlation goes away. That's a fact. CO2 emissions no longer correlate to the mean temperature. You're ignoring this. You may well have a supposition for this discrepancy, but it'll just be your (or another's) guess, and no longer factual. BoneCrusher brought up the idea that it takes a while for water to warm up (never mind all the exposed land mass and atmosphere); but all it is his guess.

I don???t know what motivates you.

My motivation is easy to understand. I don't take much as face value; certainly nothing of consequence. I want to see the information, the facts, that support it.

You are shooting the messenger. So you claim that, worldwide, these people are risking their careers, their reputations and their livelihoods by knowingly cooking the books on their findings just for some short term gain? Possible but not likely. My guys are credible. I don't know what resources you rely on for disputing these climatologists....

You have it backwards. They're risking their careers if the don't tow line. If not their careers, at least some of their funding.

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But please list 3 eminent climatologists guilty of this apparent flip flop.

I don't care enough to track down the list again. It's out there if you feel like spending the time to find it.

 

[NeilPearson]

The graph shows a correlation... but it doesn't say which causes which.

Does CO2 cause global warming or does higher temperatures result in the planet generating more CO2?

Or maybe there is a 3rd factor that causes both CO2 and heat... like forest fires or something.

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

 

[DOMS]

That sounds like you thought about it for yourself. Tsk-tsk!

Your idea that the planet's temperature regulates CO2 is more plausible than the idea that CO2 regulates the Earth's temperature. That hypothesis would hold up against Gore's graph.

 

[maniclion]

The Earth is about to flip upside down!!!!Australia will be North and the US will be south, will we have to re name every continent????

 

[Brachiisaurus]

The Earth is about to flip upside down!!!!Australia will be North and the US will be south, will we have to re name every continent????

 

[BigDyl]

I'd be worried if I were you, son. You're kind went extinct last time that happened.

 

[brogers]

This is a very sad statement.

Everything, and I mean everything, that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest. From love of family, wife, god...you name it, there's a selfish reason/purpose/goal at the base...even martyrdom is selfish. It's the way of the world.

If pointing out that something is harming us, slowly yet surely, like a silent cancer grows, isn't that a good thing?

If someone takes a further step on marshalling efforts to battle this harmful phenomenon, isn't that also a good thing?

I guess I don't see the downside that you do. Sure, political leaders can go too far in reaching their goals but that's why we have a constitutional system of checks and balances to ensure that lunacy does not follow. Sure that system has failed us for the moment with Bush, but it is catching up.

As for Hillary Clinton--I couldn't hear the YouTube movie--she, as a politician, is answerable to the will of the people.

It is the Oil Industry, which greases the political skids in a manner you or I could not, that is answerable to no one but its own interests.

So, the scientists claiming global warming is anthropogenic and is a serious threat are legit because "everything that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest."

Interesting, because I keep hearing in the news about the oil companies being so selfish, and thus we can't trust anything they publish about global warming.

I guess it's ok for someone to be selfish if you agree with them.

As for Clinton, it's pretty naive to think that she "answers to the people" moreso than a private company. Since this is true, we should nationalize the oil industry that way it can "answer to the people" better. Maybe Chavez was on to something

By the way, that clip of Clinton was her saying she wants to take Exxon Mobile's profits. Sounds to me like she doesn't even want to answer to the Constitution.

 

[maniclion]

As the price of technology comes down, others will follow. They always do. Once alternative energies are cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, there won't be much point in sticking with fossil fuels.

I sell more and more PV (photo voltaic) modules every week, it's grown so much since I started four years ago we went from selling a million a year to a million every couple months. If you ever come to Honolulu you'll see as you head back to the Airport the Harley Davidson Building with it's full array of electric modules, then you'll see the Navy Housing with every home topped with a cherry of two or more solar hot water arrays, it's like taking a glimpse into the future....