This is, by far, the most well written document concerning climate change. Please take a minute to educate yourself.
Just like Duke used to say, "... knowing is half the battle!"
Printable View
This is, by far, the most well written document concerning climate change. Please take a minute to educate yourself.
Just like Duke used to say, "... knowing is half the battle!"
It's important to note that "Global Warming, The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus" was written in 1992, and allegedly funded by OPEC. That is to say it is both outdated and biased. The simple fact is that global CO2 and the global average temperatures are going up. Though I suppose you can argue about whether its humanity's fault, what the consequences are likely to be and even whether we should care.
(The matter of Linden's funding for this article may be found in the following essay The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial written in 1995 for Harper Magazine by Ross Gelbspan. Skip to midway through the 16th paragraph.)
I don't think you can argue humanities involvement. Facts are facts. The earth cools and warms periodically and has done so for eons. Science can't explain the drop in temperatures during a 30 year period (starting in the 40's) despite an increase in CO2 admissions let alone the global warming that is occuring on Mars. And as scientists themselves acknolwedge their ignorance, "In climate research and modelling [sic], we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." -- The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. It's rather presumptions for any organizations or country to waste billions of dollars in stupid laws and agreements like the 'Kyoto Accords' (which no one has met yet!)Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesFox
You can't argue one way or the other as there are not enough facts. It would be like arguing the existence of aliens. It seems likely, but there's no proof.
"3 DECEMBER 2004 VOL 306 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have
used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions....
....[SKEPTICS] suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate
change. This is not the case.
....In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements......
.....The American Meteorological Society.... the American GeophysicalUnion....the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling .... The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision...."
Basically, 95% of scientists studying the situation are in agreement on this subject. Sure, you can throw the 5% who don't out there and be like: "Look, these guys say that Global Warming is a myth!", but to my mind that's like ignoring the 19 mechanics who all agree your brakes are about to go in favor of the solitary dude who tells you that they're alright.
Now, if you still want to hold up "uncertainty" as a foil here is what the EPA has to say on the subject. It does a good job of outlining exactly what your money quote there means.
Anyone read an interesting book called State of Fear?
I agree that we contribute to gases in the atmosphere, but to the degree that we do and the effect it has on "global warming" is in much question compared to natural sources of "greenhouse" gases. I happen to think that changes in the sun play a great part in global warming as well. I think scientists have about as much grasp on "global warming" as they do about cell phones and brain cancer.
Scientist can't seem to explain the "global warming" that took place during the early 1900s or the cooling periods after it. Many of these same scientist wrote articles about global cooling in the 70s. Why was the increase in temperature greater when our contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere was far less than it is now yet temperature increases are lower?
The greatest period of warming occurred not within the last thirty years, but from 1907 to 1943 when CO2 rose less than 10 parts per million compared to about 50ppm in the last thirty years. So where is the correlation? We are talking about less than 4 tenths of a degree deviation from "normal" here.
I expect at some point our contribution to "global warming" will be in a future edition of Facts & Fallacies.
Late Additional Comment: I just want to say that I think pollution is a real problem. I just don't believe in the global warming scare campaign. I'm far more concerned with air and water quality (Which I think can be addressed in a logical and non-economic destroying way, unlike what is advocated by some enviro-terrorists groups) than I am something that takes decades or centuries, not years, to measure and after about a century of data, it is still inconclusive as the measurable effects are almost non-existent.
My original rebuttal was full of quotes. That was ineffective. Instead, I'll argue your points:
I take it that you didn't read the article linked in my original post as the references you provided are the very ones that the article's author quoted as being irrelevant.
The AGU has issued a 'statement'. Well, seeing how the AGU is made up of students and researchers in the field of Paleomagnetism, Seismology, Space Physics, Aeronomy, Tectnophysics and Geochemistry, I would say that you have a lot of folks that aren't experts in weather providing their input outside of their field. In fact, both the current president and the president-elect of AGU aren't even Meteorologists (Orcutt is a seismologist and Killeen is a space physicist). Heck, most of AGU leadership consists of these types of folks, so their input into global warming is about as relevant as mine.
The AAAS suffers the same bloated, misinformed cadre of scientists that feel that they need to give their two sense concerning a scientific field in which they have no trainining in. Hell, the President of the AAAS is a frickin Doctor of Internal Medicine!!!!
I agree that if 15 mechanics all say my brakes need work, I would take action. But I certainly wouldn't take action (especially action that would result in huge financial loss) if 15 cow de-wormers told me that my brakes were bad. No. I would go to a specialist. And the specialist today are in disagreement over global warming.
My point being that scientists just don't know the answers, yet politicians are making decisions that have a deep and long lasting financial impact on this and other countries. Too much as been derived from data correlation (the earth warmed while CO'2 went up, hence, CO'2 caused the earth to heat) rather through casualty (cause/effect). Most of the predicions on global warming turn out to be false. Their data is provided on models and models just don't work in such chaotic systems. They can't predict weather more than 10 days (5 days for accuracy), yet you'll believe them if they tell you that the earth will be warming in 250 years?
The IPCC report said it best: "In climate research and modelling [sic], we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." -- The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001.
Is that to say that we should pollute? We should all start fires just for fun? No... it simply means that this is a scientific problem, not a political one.
And yes FC... State of Fear was a good read. It vocalized my firm belief in the PLM and it's power over Americans.
I did read your article, but I still like my sources. Just because the AAAS' president is an MD doesn't mean he personally wrote the report issued in it's name.
And sure, modelling future climate shifts is a bit shakey (though not so much so as it was in 1992). How about well modelled historic trends though? The earth's average temperature has been increasing for more than a century. As you've pointed out, it is uneven, but when you look at a century's worth of measurements it's pretty clear. Here are three sets of average temps gathered by different studies.
So, something is causing the Earth to get hotter. It can either be an increase in heat input, or an increase in heat retention. We don't have any evidence of anything adding to the heat budget, but we do greenhouse gas concentrations going up during the same time period.
So at what point does it become a political problem? When a certain percentage of the worlds climatologists are in agreement? When the Greenland ice sheet disintigrates? Once enough coral reefs die off to seriously affect our fisheries? When the North Atlantic current shuts down? We're already seeing a lot of signs of exactly those things happening, though you can wave your hand and declare that those things don't matter or aren't related or something. I'd argue that it's already a political problem, and that we probably ought to do something now while it's still possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Nuts
No, but it does de-value the report as it is sponsored by individuals that are speaking of things in which they have no training and no experience in. I would doubt a report written about penguins if it was sponsored by the Nazi Party of America, even if it was written by penguinologists (good word, eh?).Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesFox
Yep, a century's worth of data from a hodgepodge collection of points around the globe. Collection points such as downtown New York, where any hint of temperature adjustment due to urban heat are discounted. Or collection points in remote villages using inaccurate equipment and invalid methods. Would you trust a guy that told you it was 89 degrees today, or the guy that reported 89 degrees in 1896? I would say that modern data collection is more accurate, hence the historical results are skewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesFox
And that my friends, is data correlation; the heart of the problem. We see two numbers and put them together rather than looking at the entire system, a system we barely understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesFox
It's political only when the scientists understand the cause and effect of mankind's activites on the planet and can make logicial suggestions as to a course of action. The Kyoto accord fiasco is just one piece of evidence that taking a politically motivated stand on climate change will have little to no impact on the environment while costing billions of dollars. If we don't know what the impact of global warming is, then we certainly shouldn't be taking any action one way or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesFox
Edit: Additional
I was speaking with my Italian co-worker (Italy having signed, but like all other signers, can't meet the Kyoto Accords) about this topic. He believes that any action is better than no action, and I suppose that many of you may also buy into this. But imagine this scenario:
You're boss wants you to complete a detailed report by tomorrow. At about 11pm, you get a pounding headache. You correlate the data: You didn't have a headache before you started the report, and now after 6 hours of work you have a headache. Hence, working on the report results in a headache. Your only course of action based on the information presented is to stop working on the report. This of course will result in you being fired from your job, but your only concern is the headache and damn and consequences, right?
But maybe, just maybe it was the loud music coming from your kids' room that was causing the headache. Or maybe it was the poor lighting in the room. Or the fact that you finally need glasses. Or the fact that the day before you suffered a concussion (sp) while playing baseball. Or maybe your chair is the cause? Or maybe... Or maybe. There are maybe a hundred different causes for a headache, yet you made an assumption and stuck with it becuase you assumed it would fix the problem.
Now take this line of thinking to the chaotic system of global weather where there are not hundreds but millions upon million of variable and you know of only a handfull. But yet you're willing to take action based on limited data gathered over limited time? Bah!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/25/global.warming.hurricanes.reut/index.html
I'll spare you from the CNN misleading headline of "Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes".
Hey, at least they acknowledged the other party this time when they said
So, instead of saying "Experts debate cause of 2005 hurricanes".. they have to resort to sensationalism. Nah.. no bias in our MSM!!Quote:
"His conclusion will be debated throughout the week-long conference, as other researchers present opposing papers that say changing wind and temperature conditions in the tropics are due to natural events, not the accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions clouding the Earth."
None the less... this is garbage "science".
In other words, with a lack of scientific evidence, workable models, and a solid hypothesis - we'll just resort to global warming scare tactics.Quote:
"There seems to be no other conclusion you can logically draw."
So global warming is man-made, right? A while back scientists found evidence of global warming on Mars and just today, they found that Jupiter too is heating. "The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe." ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html )
Just one more reason to ban SUV's and get rid of Bush! He's killing Jupiter!
This just in:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
Money quote: "Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research."
My money quote: "humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
:lol2:
I'm waiting for the lefties to say that it's our fault that the sun is burning more brightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Bribo
Something like .... "Bush lied, Earth fried." I'm sure it's been done on a protest sign already :-P