The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Unless the CBO guarantees to pay any additional costs on top of their estimations, I call bunk. Notice there is no such guarantee, because they don't actually care one way or the other.

 

Even Warren Buffett is saying it's going to be a tax passed right onto the consumer -- to think for one second the utilities are just going to suck it up and pay it is laughable. When it comes to money, I tend to trust Buffett more than the government -- he actually makes profits more often than swimming in red.

 

As for the "science" of climate change -- regardless of what you think, there IS valid science on both sides. To simply ignore one side just because it doesn't agree with you is ignorant. Again, there *is* counter science. This is another case of "our science is prooven, 100% real, your science is fake trash!". Yea, ok, because that's how it works.

 

In the 1970's, the science of global cooling was "90%" prooven fact, too. Funny how that changed the second the money started flowing toward warming. It's bulls***, it's about money, it's always about money.

 

 

 

Your the arrogant one if you completely ignore the science against it. Global Climate Change or whatever the hell it is called now is FAR from a fact. In Europe you are seeing more and more scientists stepping up against Global Warming.

 

But yeah, you're right... we're just all deniers if we don't accept the crap Al Gore has been feeding us over the past several years. I should get my head checked because I don't agree with "90% of science."

 

 

As has been posted in this forum on multiple occasions...

 

1. The whole 1970's cooling thing is a joke. One article by one scientist says there is a cooling trend, and now all people looking for any crack in climate change grab onto the MEDIA panic FROM that article to say "SCIENCE WAS WRONG THEN". That is of course not at all the case. There was not some huge trend or wave of science talking of global cooling - there was nothing of the sort. You have been fooled into thinking there was. If there was anything more than one pseudo-science piece and a bunch of media tripe, please do show me.

 

2. What counterscience? Last I looked, just a few months ago in here I think (I need to go look), they scraped up thousands of peer-reviewed scientific pieces that studied global climate change, and nary a one made an argument that it wasn't happening. Most said it had at least a partial human causation (how much is of course very much up for debate). So again, what counterscience? Can you cite a single scientific research piece (not some writer pulling together bits and pieces of other articles) that shows its not happening? Because I have yet to see such a thing.

 

You guys are really grasping at straws here. Its not that one science is good and the other is trash - its that there IS NO SCIENCE saying its not happening. Some dude looking at 5 years of data and saying "SEE, NO WARMING!!!" is not science. Its not a peer-reviewed, academic or research piece.

 

Show me an example of where I am wrong.

 

[BearSox]

Another false meme. Literature reviews of papers published show a 44-7 margin in favor of warming in the 70's. What Time or Newsweek chooses to hype doesn't determine what the mainstream scientific thought is. They will often pick the more sensational story. Also, the cooling periods cited were often 10 or 20k years out, not exactly short term.

 

It's not about the money. If you think it is, then you probably don't know any actual scientists. With that line of thought, you can just dismiss any and all scientific findings because they're just lying for money. It makes me sad to see people denigrate scientific study in such an ignorant manner.

If it's not about money, why did congress just pass a bill that does nothing but tax the s*** out of everyone?

[NorthSideSox72]

:facepalm:

 

It's not about Gore. Forget about Gore. He does not matter. Personally, I think he's a jackass. Doesn't matter one bit. Pay attention to peer-reviewed science, not political figures or editorials. That's what matters.

 

As for the 90%, here's a link.

 

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

 

 

The tide isn't turning. There's no global conspiracy to suppress evidence or data showing otherwise. It's not an insidious liberal agenda and its not about greedy scientists. Put away the tin foil hats and pick up a copy of Science, or at least Scientific American.

 

It wasn't that I've read a lot of the science or that "hmm, they mostly agree" that convinced me; it was the completely vacuousness of the counter-arguments.

 

There will always be doubters and contrarians. There's still fringe scientists out there who deny evolution or relativity. You'll find that they have the same global conspriracy, suppressing the truth, in-it-for-the-money, but the tide is turning! rhetoric.

Thank you.

 

Could 99% of these climatologists be wrong? Sure. But to hang onto that 1% as if its likely is like waiting for DeWayne Wise to go on a 30 game hitting streak.

 

The counter-science just isn't there. Its non-existent or a very, very small minority. the only tide that is changing is purely politicians and op-ed writers.

 

[StrangeSox]

If it's not about money, why did congress just pass a bill that does nothing but tax the s*** out of everyone?

 

Congress =/= scientific research.

 

The bill is designed to reduce CO2 emissions. Taxes and tax rebates are economic incentives to do things.

 

The idea that the vast majority of scientists would lie and fake data for decades for money is incredibly offensive to one of our most important bodies of work.

[StrangeSox]

Thank you.

 

Could 99% of these climatologists be wrong? Sure. But to hang onto that 1% as if its likely is like waiting for DeWayne Wise to go on a 30 game hitting streak.

 

The counter-science just isn't there. Its non-existent or a very, very small minority. the only tide that is changing is purely politicians and op-ed writers.

 

Absolutely. Count me in the "I'm not 100% sure, but better safe than sorry" category.

[NorthSideSox72]

Absolutely. Count me in the "I'm not 100% sure, but better safe than sorry" category.

it pisses me off to no end as well, we were willing to spend $1T, kill a few thousand American soldiers and a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians to go to war in Iraq on this evidence: reports by a single lying informant (Curveball), and satelite images of trucks moving around.

 

An yet, when thousands of scientists all over the world in near-unison say, hey, maybe we should do something to protect ourselves... well, we can't spend money on that, can we?

 

f***ed up priorities.

 

[BearSox]

As has been posted in this forum on multiple occasions...

 

1. The whole 1970's cooling thing is a joke. One article by one scientist says there is a cooling trend, and now all people looking for any crack in climate change grab onto the MEDIA panic FROM that article to say "SCIENCE WAS WRONG THEN". That is of course not at all the case. There was not some huge trend or wave of science talking of global cooling - there was nothing of the sort. You have been fooled into thinking there was. If there was anything more than one pseudo-science piece and a bunch of media tripe, please do show me.

 

2. What counterscience? Last I looked, just a few months ago in here I think (I need to go look), they scraped up thousands of peer-reviewed scientific pieces that studied global climate change, and nary a one made an argument that it wasn't happening. Most said it had at least a partial human causation (how much is of course very much up for debate). So again, what counterscience? Can you cite a single scientific research piece (not some writer pulling together bits and pieces of other articles) that shows its not happening? Because I have yet to see such a thing.

 

You guys are really grasping at straws here. Its not that one science is good and the other is trash - its that there IS NO SCIENCE saying its not happening. Some dude looking at 5 years of data and saying "SEE, NO WARMING!!!" is not science. Its not a peer-reviewed, academic or research piece.

 

Show me an example of where I am wrong.

 

Really, no science saying it's not happening... here's a list of some of the global warming skeptics who so happen to be scientists:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

Oh, how about this one:

 

Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists - 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting global warming.

 

 

 

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

 

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

 

Also, what about more and more scientists standing up against global warming in Europe?

 

But yeah, I'm sure you're right... there is absolutely no science against global warming.

 

 

 

[BearSox]

it pisses me off to no end as well, we were willing to spend $1T, kill a few thousand American soldiers and a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians to go to war in Iraq on this evidence: reports by a single lying informant (Curveball), and satelite images of trucks moving around.

 

An yet, when thousands of scientists all over the world in near-unison say, hey, maybe we should do something to protect ourselves... well, we can't spend money on that, can we?

 

f***ed up priorities.

I feel safer without Saddam, but that's just me.

 

And how exactly is this bill gonna help anyone besides investors in global warming and some select businesses? I got no problem with wanting to make the earth cleaner, but this is completely the wrong way to go about it. This is nothing but a huge tax increase, the largest in American History. And I'm shocked how so many people can support this bill, even though it provides no evidence it will help the environment, and not one politician read the damn thing. This is absurd. Is there any common sense left in the world?????

[StrangeSox]

Really, no science saying it's not happening... here's a list of some of the global warming skeptics who so happen to be scientists:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

Oh, how about this one:

 

You can find silly "Dissent from Darwin" lists, too. They're meaningless.

 

Where's the peer-reviewed papers?

 

 

 

Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists - 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting global warming.

 

 

 

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

 

A report of a WorldNetDaily (ha!) report of a petition? What is this supposed to mean? Who are the signatories? What is their relavant expertise? Why should I care what a medical doctor or someone with a bachelor's degree has to say? Are these 9,000 PhD holders climatologists, meteorologists, or have any sort of expertise in this field?

 

I hold a Bachelor's in science. I never took a single course on biology, climate, geology, weather, etc. in college. Why should my opinion on the matter lend any weight to the issue?

 

These sorts of lists are just crappy appeals to authority, and its not even relevant authority.

Where is the science?

 

Also, what about more and more scientists standing up against global warming in Europe?

 

Source, please.

 

But yeah, I'm sure you're right... there is absolutely no science against global warming.

 

Citations, please.

 

Google Scholar is a fantastic source. So is arXiv.

Edited June 27, 2009 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Really, no science saying it's not happening... here's a list of some of the global warming skeptics who so happen to be scientists:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

Oh, how about this one:

 

 

 

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

 

Also, what about more and more scientists standing up against global warming in Europe?

 

But yeah, I'm sure you're right... there is absolutely no science against global warming.

 

OK, did you read the Wiki entry you posted here? Because right in the first paragraph...

 

This article lists scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful.

 

Its not what you think it is. And further, the 2nd graf...

 

Climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Within this general agreement, some individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that most of this warming is attributable to human activities.

 

The very article you quote says science agrees with what I have been saying - climate change is occurring and its real and its significant. And while a large majority feel it has at least some human causation, there are SOME who disagree with certain specific posits made, and as to the extent of it. Your article supports my argument exactly. Read it and see.

 

As for the other piece...

 

 

The Tulsa Beacon? Seriously? Who is then citing World Net Daily? And its a petition that amounts to printing a form online, signing it, and sending it in. No research necessary.

 

So, again, NO SCIENCE HERE. No research. No evidence. No one saying it isn't happening. Just a small list of scientists who feel, for example, that it is mostly natural, or has some unknown factors contributing. Like I said.

 

 

[Balta1701]

You can find silly "Dissent from Darwin" lists, too. They're meaningless.

I love the Discovery Institute's "We don't believe in evolution and we're scientists!" list.

 

We have a list of people who support evolution longer than their list by a factor of 10.

 

The difference? Ours consists solely of people named "Steve".

 

It's pretty much the same way in climate science. We have more people named Steve who think it's a problem than they have people.

[Balta1701]

The Tulsa Beacon? Seriously? Who is then citing World Net Daily? And its a petition that amounts to printing a form online, signing it, and sending it in. No research necessary.

Actually, most people actively involved in research are somewhat careful about the wording of anything they affix their name to willingly. Those Inhofe style lists like the one WND is talking about there isn't a petition they actually signed - it's based on quote mining. Any time someone said anything that could be construed (even by taking 1/3 of a full sentence) as opposing any conclusion regarding climate change, Inhofe's folks grabbed their name. And then they never take people off once someone tells the actual person "Hey, what the Hell are you doing on this list?"

[Y2HH]

So everything posted against your "science" is bulls***, but everything you post is 100% spot on, exact science?

 

Seriously.

 

I bet you also dismissed the video called the great global warming swindle, too...just because it doesn't agree with everything you think/say?

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870

 

Oh, and those ARE real scientists even if you wish to deny that fact.

 

It's a video worth watching for anyone on either side of the "scientific debate".

 

As the video begins -- we live in an age of reason -- so be reasonable and stop being asshats about it just because it doesn't go along with your liberal agendas.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

I love the Discovery Institute's "We don't believe in evolution and we're scientists!" list.

 

We have a list of people who support evolution longer than their list by a factor of 10.

 

The difference? Ours consists solely of people named "Steve".

 

It's pretty much the same way in climate science. We have more people named Steve who think it's a problem than they have people.

 

Project Steve

[Balta1701]

If global warming was such reality, why'd they slyly change it from global warming to climate change? The answer is because the more they studied it the more they realized it was a load of crap. But climate change...that cannot be wrong. Ever. Why? Because, the climate has changed forever...and will continue to change forever.

Oh, and I have a great answer to this. Global warming isn't actually as accurate of a word to describe what is happening as climate change (Hell, Anthropogenic (human-caused) Climate change is even more accurate). Why? Because not all of the globe gets warmer with increasing CO2 emissions. 80% of the world gets warmer, the poles warm up extremely, but there are zones that certainly get colder. Europe is a prime example - if you warm the north atlantic you weaken the gulf stream, less energy is brought north, and Northern Europe on the whole cools off somewhat.

 

It's also worth noting that the temperature is not the only thing that changes; the general weather patterns also change. Some areas that are already hot simply dry out more (The Western U.S.) Some areas get hit with more intense storms. Some areas wind up with more snow. Etc.

[Y2HH]

Oh, and I have a great answer to this. Global warming isn't actually as accurate of a word to describe what is happening as climate change (Hell, Anthropogenic (human-caused) Climate change is even more accurate). Why? Because not all of the globe gets warmer with increasing CO2 emissions. 80% of the world gets warmer, the poles warm up extremely, but there are zones that certainly get colder. Europe is a prime example - if you warm the north atlantic you weaken the gulf stream, less energy is brought north, and Northern Europe on the whole cools off somewhat.

 

It's also worth noting that the temperature is not the only thing that changes; the general weather patterns also change. Some areas that are already hot simply dry out more (The Western U.S.) Some areas get hit with more intense storms. Some areas wind up with more snow. Etc.

 

The answer is because it was bulls***.

 

The world goes through warming and cooling periods, over and over again, it did it before man was here, and it will do it after man is here, too.

[StrangeSox]

TGGWS actually did fabricate data. Two of the contributing scientists had serious problems with the final product. It's a propaganda film. I lend it no more weight than Inconvenient Truth.

 

 

Peer-reviewed science, please.

[StrangeSox]

The answer is because it was bulls***.

 

The world goes through warming and cooling periods, over and over again, it did it before man was here, and it will do it after man is here, too.

 

I have a feeling that those who spend their entire lives studying the issue are aware of natural trends.

 

It's this sort of completely empty criticism that swayed me.

[Y2HH]

TGGWS actually did fabricate data. Two of the contributing scientists had serious problems with the final product. It's a propaganda film. I lend it no more weight than Inconvenient Truth.

 

 

Peer-reviewed science, please.

 

But it does in fact exist -- and shows that there IS opposing science. Everyone here is claiming opposing science doesn't -- but it does.

[Balta1701]

The world goes through warming and cooling periods, over and over again, it did it before man was here, and it will do it after man is here, too.

That doesn't mean that man can't do the exact same things that trigger warming trends and get the exact same results. Warming and cooling trends on the earth are not some big mystery that happen because the turtle that carries the earth on its back decides to move. There are specific triggers and feedbacks that drive those changes, and we have a good understanding of what they are.

[Y2HH]

I have a feeling that those who spend their entire lives studying the issue are aware of natural trends.

 

It's this sort of completely empty criticism that swayed me.

 

I guess that works on both sides, then, doesn't it?

[StrangeSox]

Oh, and I have a great answer to this. Global warming isn't actually as accurate of a word to describe what is happening as climate change (Hell, Anthropogenic (human-caused) Climate change is even more accurate). Why? Because not all of the globe gets warmer with increasing CO2 emissions. 80% of the world gets warmer, the poles warm up extremely, but there are zones that certainly get colder. Europe is a prime example - if you warm the north atlantic you weaken the gulf stream, less energy is brought north, and Northern Europe on the whole cools off somewhat.

 

Also, the melting glaciers will cool down the north atlantic, stopping the giant ocean "conveyor belt" that brings warmer waters up to Europe/ England.

[StrangeSox]

But it does in fact exist -- and shows that there IS opposing science. Everyone here is claiming opposing science doesn't -- but it does.

 

Documentaries are not science. Papers that don't stand up to review are not good science.

 

Wikipedia has a laundry list of the bulls*** in that film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Glo...n_and_criticism

Edited June 27, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

Documentaries are not science. Papers that don't stand up to review are not good science.

 

I can say the same. There are papers on both sides right now. It's still not prooven fact. I can keep repeating this if you didn't yet understand it.

[Balta1701]

Also, the melting glaciers will cool down the north atlantic, stopping the giant ocean "conveyor belt" that brings warmer waters up to Europe/ England.

That's actually a dramatic simplification that works well for movies. The reality is far more complex. The Wally Broecker "Conveyor Belt" paper gets cited everywhere because its a great image but it's an oversimplification of how oceanic current trends actually work. The connection between the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, for example, is somewhat tenuous.

 

At the Last Glacial Maximum, Europe was a lot colder and the Gulf Stream was about 10% weaker. Those 2 are directly linked through the salinity of water in the north atlantic, which is affected strongly by the amount of runoff/melting of snow happening in the north. First point is; it didn't shut down, and a "Shutdown" is just not going to happen because there are interactions between the winds and the gulf stream as well.

 

What can happen though is that you can weaken the intensity of those currents or you can change their direction and produce very large shifts. That's what happens with rising CO2.