Global Warming Hysteria Building - Page 8

Mmm...I don't think that Gore's end goals are objectionable given that reducing dependence on foreign oil and reducing environmental footprint is within national interests. If you disagree with the methods...we'll then I think you'll have a hard time with any American politics or movement.

I would also suggest that while the US and other developed countries are most likely to be able to adapt to changing climates we also have the most to lose when the status quo are disrupted. If the US was to move from food exporter to food importer that wouldn't do the US much good would it?


Given the scarsity of data and the poor climate models in existance I don't know why you would put much stock in projections either for or against given the error bars are themselves likely in the "several hundred years" if not worse category.

Odds are we wouldn't recognize the tipping point except in hindsight.

Do we agree that climate change is occuring...in as much as we can measure decreased ice coverage and increased freshwater? Some folks doubt even that...but even if you argue its part of a natural cycle I think most would agree that this is atypical of recorded changes within human history (spotty as that may be) and other historical sources (ice cores) are not particularly reassuring with respect to either outcome or the rapidity that they can occur.

As to what we should do about it...well, preserving quality of life while using less resources is a good thing regardless of outcomes. I'm willing to live with Gore as much as I live with idiots like Limbaugh and neo-cons that want to drill in the ANWR when we know the value of the oil there is only going to go up. Let us drain other sources first before touching ANWR. Leave it be as a US controlled source for long term use.

For the most part, Gore represents environmentalists that aren't complete treehugging idiots. Investments in going green are mostly, IMHO, inline with other national interests. Likewise adding a nuke plant or two wouldn't hurt either.

Either we can choose to do so via "Goricle's" movement or we can be forced to do so. I think the former will be less painful overall and I don't see the right pushing this agenda even at a reasonable/moderate level so that leaves it to the left. If you want a reasoned approach more in line with your ideology...well you need to bitch at our leadership and not theirs.

Vinea

Only if you are an extremist.

Most moderates can see both sides to an issue.

From my perspective (not necessarily moderate but whatever) I see there are extremists that want to make the environment the highest possible priority vs folks that want to do nothing.

Well I think both sides are idiots and if they want to consider me against them, that's ducky.


The debate is (IMHO) over the risk factor. There is also the risk of a planet/life killing meteroite hit. Most folks judge that to be low enough not to expend a lot of resources on (read nearly zero). Folks do judge the environment to be at a higher risk so the investment is much much higher.

If you think its that important then I suppose that you should drive a hybrid, live close to work, install solar and other alternative energy sources and vote appropriately.

Vinea

Gore is not a complete treehugging idiot.

He is the tree.

And we should believe your interpretation over many professionals because.......???????

By the way I don't suppose you have a link or 2 that supports your supposition?

Are you on some kind of medication? His whole post was about employing professional statisticians and publishing data openly, instead of relying on anyone's interpretation.

A quote from his post :

" yet for many years they have continued to refuse to reveal their data, mathematics, methods, or computer code. So far, 'the most important issue to civilization' is based on a handful of 'trust us' researchers who croon "you don't need to know". "



And proof of what he says?

Funny every article I've ever read seemed to have facts and figures.

Frank... buddy... friend... please let me save you some time. Don't bother. Really. Reading the thread is not a pre-requisite to his commentary. Head over to page seven of the Iran/Hostage thread for Exhibit A.

Right. The guy who questions the completely unfounded claim that climate scientists "don't show their work" is possibly mentally ill.

There is something particularly depressing about bone ignorance getting smug.

Wow... I'm getting smug just thinking about it. MMmmmmmm. Smuuuuuuuuggggg....

That's not the issue. He's arguing that the methods by which the "figures" were arrived at, and the data by which the "facts" are agreed upon, should be made available for scrutiny at the same time as the hysteria-inducing headlines are printed.

I fail to see the problem with that. From what I've seen - it doesn't happen now in many cases.

Oh, please help me,

In what branches of scientific research, or engineering research for that matter, are the raw data, procedural methods of analyses, and any underlying codes routinely placed into the public domain?

To answer my own question, none that I'm aware of.

Let us have all governments pass laws on standards for doing research, but then, it wouldn't be research now would it?

We can make these standards bodies new committees of ISO and ASTM. You know research done "by the book."

Heck let's hand over all research to bookkeepers, that way we would know for sure that the "books weren't cooked," because you know, you should always trust bookkeepers, because as we all know bookkeepers NEVER "cook the books."

This "cart before the horse" is nonsense, research determines the standards, not the other way around!

From what I understand of a certain individual's background, they are neither a researcher, a scientist, or an engineer!

Likewise, the only "hysteria" appearent in these threads, seems to be coming from said individual.

Uh, OK. Thanks. I'm not saying it happened on its own or that we shouldn't reduce pollutants. I'm all for mandating higher fuel economy and emissions standards as well, at least within reason.

There. Fixed that for you.

Awesome. Another entry by the Automated Joke Recycler. Coulter?

Isn't there anything original about you and your personalities? The irony of it all is that at least we have unequivocal proof that you "recycle". Often.

Nope. That one's all me.

Nothing much unpredictable about your responses in this forum, either, BTW. At least you take time to read the daily talking points with the rest of us.
Care to speak to the issue we're all here for... and not to me? Thanks.

Sorry, when the thread topic is "Global Warming Hysteria Building", then inevitably some of the discussion will be the mechanics of right-wing framing, of which stupid Gore jokes are certainly a part.

I don't know why this was released two weeks after the fact:

Al Gore Booed Graduates From Concordia

we need to act now, if we don't it will be melt down time for MARS......it warmed up .6c as had earth in the same time period...... geee i guess our co2 is spreading. ha ha

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...s-warming.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...E&chanID=sa007

http://www.americanchronicle.com/art...rticleID=22940

global warming alarmist a new religion all hail gaia

Instead of your usual drival how about some proof about what you've been saying in relation to global warming data. You know something more than hot air.

T, FTFY!

Now let's discusss your "Hysteria" surrounding these reports of AGW on Mars , in the order I opened them (i. e. (3), (1), (2), and (4)).

The first three are essentially factual reports, in particular the first one from Scientific American (of which I've been a subscriber for 30+ years, thus it was the first one I viewed since I immediately recognized the "sciam" URL). And of course the CBC is well known (I watched them on TV for something like 20+ years as a "youngster."). Don't know much about BreitBart.com, except when you all post links to it (OK just saw the wikipedia association to Drudge Report, go figure)! None of these suggest a causal link between GW on Earth versus whatever causes Martian climatic conditions. Let me repeat that: NONE!

The last link you provided from something called the "American Chronicle" is an op-ed piece that is clearly WHACKO!

So let's review you links;

"Scientific American" Googling this gives me 1,910,000 hits, Hmm.
"Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" Googling this gives me 950,000 hits, Hmm.
"American Chronicle" Googling this gives me 49 hits, simply MASSIVE!
"BreitBart" Googling this gives me 35 hits, again simply MASSIVE!

At least provide a link to something like Faux Noise, at least it Googles ~9M hits!

And now some "dubious" facts from wikipedia;


So, maybe, just maybe, that includes climate on planetary bodies, which might fall under planetary DYNAMICS! You think?


So let me take a wild speculative guess, the word "Gaia" dates back to Greek times, so it's been around for something like 2,500 YEARS!

In closing, just more SOP hysteria from the Hysterians!

TYVM, bucko!

OK. Simple. Ice cores. We've been warming and cooling for millions of years. It's impossible to know, much less be certain it is our fault. I have here upon my desk a story from 1975 about global cooling. This is all so much BS meant to make us hand over more and more freedom to the forces of global socialism. If the sun increased its output by 0.05%, we'd all be dead within 10 years. Who is to say?



Also... In 53 years of it, you should at least know how to spell it.

drivel
n.
1. Saliva flowing from the mouth.
2. Stupid or senseless talk.

This mac OS thing has a spell checker! Damn!

(checks global warming skeptic bingo card, checks off "in the 70s scientists were predicting an ice age" and "ice cores show that warming precedes increases in CO2")

Glad I could help.

Global Warming Agnostics Unite!
I don't know, and you don't either!

Compared to you I'm Da Vinci in terms of originality.
You mean the few of you. Actually I don't read any talking points. (Not like it wasn't obvious or anything, but thanks for admitting you do.) I graduated from what's left of the Rep party a few years ago thank you.

By the way. As this thread has "evolved" ("regressed"?), I think a more appropriate title should be "Global Warming Skeptics' Hysteria Building".

*yawn*

Cool, Gilsch. <fires up hookah>

No. Reduction of energy use and dependence on foriegn oil has national benefits outside the environment. Redution of pollution reduces costs and improves health for US citizens and therefore has national benefits outside the environment.

Investing money into both endeavors has both long and short term benefits. Not investing heavily in reduction of fossil fuel use is boneheaded stupidity that empowers our potential enemies.


The data as shown appear to disagree. Reduction in ice caps and glaciers is not subject to debate or require significant analysis. These are easily verified using commonly available imagery from Google and others. They certainly are lower than in the past 100 years and further based on oral/historical accounts.


There is a wealth of data available. There is also some data reserved for the project scientists to write their papers first before other folks get to use the data. This seems to be pretty common.

In any case, these are unsupported accusations of unamed scientists. There are many scientists that release data, methods and calculations.


This is nonsense. If we can continue to increase our standard of living while reducing the resources we need we are more competitive in the world marketplace able to export more and import less. This also implies technological improvements and more opportunities for the US to excel.


I suggest you need to revisit estimates of Chinese growth in resource use. Doesn't seem like you are all that much better informed in your own field of expertise that you have significant latitude to criticize climate scientists.


Because you are being obtuse. There are environmentalists that would dismantle our military and commerical capabilities and are anti-technology in general.

There are environmentalists that are pro-business and are pro-technology.

Which is Gore?


Investments in green have both monetary and political ROIs that appear to make economic sense to folks that aren't extremists at either end of the spectrum.

Being conservative in spending resources is no different than being conservative in spending money. Hence my opposition to things like drilling the ANWR. Why pull our oil out of the ground at $64 a barrel when we know that in 20 years it will be worth far more?

Why not invest heavily in alternate energy sources when dependence on foriegn oil is a national liability and fuel costs will only continue to rise?


For the record, I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican but really hate neo-cons for being dumber than liberals on nearly every issue...particulary foreign policy and defense. Its almost as if the party decided during the Clinton years that the only way to win was to be crazier and even more out of touch with reality than the far left of the Democratic party. The neo-cons made the party very partisan and very petty to boot.

Vinea

"Billions of people face shortages of food and water and increased risk of flooding, experts at a major climate change conference have warned.

The bleak conclusion came ahead of the publication of a key report by hundreds of international environmental experts.

Agreement on the final wording of the report was reached after a marathon debate through the night in Brussels.

People living in poverty would be worst affected by the effects of climate change, the gathered experts said.

"It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Mr Pachauri said those people were also the least equipped to deal with the effects of such changes.

Key findings

\t
READ THE IPCC FINDINGS PDF


Outlining the report's findings, Martin Parry, co-chairman of IPCC Working Group II, said evidence showed climate change was having a direct effect on animals, plants and water.

"For the first time, we are no longer arm-waving with models; this is empirical data, we can actually measure it," he told a news conference.

Key findings of the report include:

* 75-250 million people across Africa could face water shortages by 2020

* Crop yields increase could increase by 20% in East and Southeast Asia, but decrease by up to 30% in Central and South Asia

* Agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50% in some African countries by 2020

* 20-30% of all plant and animal species at increased risk of extinction if temperatures rise between 1.5-2.5C

* Glaciers and snow cover expected to decline, reducing water availability in countries supplied by melt water

The report states that the observed increase in the global average temperature was "very likely" due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientific work reviewed by IPCC scientists includes more than 29,000 pieces of data on observed changes in physical and biological aspects of the natural world.

Eighty-nine percent of these, it believes, are consistent with a warming world.

Year of reports

Scientists and politicians have welcomed the report.

"This further underlines both how urgent it is to reach global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and how important it is for us all to adapt to the climate change that is already under way," European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told the Reuters news agency.

\t

"This is another wake up call for governments, industry and individuals. We now have a clearer indication of the potential impact of global warming, some of which is already inevitable," said Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society.

"The challenge is now to support those people living in the most vulnerable areas so that they are able to adapt and improve their ways of life."

The wording of the summary of the report, which will be sent to world leaders in time for a G8 summit of industrialised nations in June, was finally decided after scientists and government officials from more than 100 countries worked through the night.

Several delegations, including the US, Saudi Arabia, China and India, had asked for the final version to reflect less certainty than the draft.

It is the second in a series of IPCC reports coming out this year, together making up its fourth global climate assessment.

The first element, on the science of climate change, released in February, concluded it was at least 90% likely that human activities are principally responsible for the warming observed since 1950.

The third part, due in May, will focus on ways of curbing the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature.

A fourth report in November will sum up all the findings.

/posts and runs away

Hmmmm? I'm just not seeing any links from a professional that supports your ideas?

So how about it?

Also if you want I can get on your case for every mistake in spelling or typo you make?

I really must have hit a nerve with that age thing!

Gee sorry!

An interesting interview with Terry Root from Stanford University.

http://news.com.com/Humans+fiddle+wh...tml?tag=st.num

It is one thing to advocate any one side of a debate. It is entirely another to pretend the other side doesn't even exist.

Scores of scientists have questioned the relevance of the human contributions to global warming. Some have gone as far as taking out newspaper ads to question policy on the issue. Canada's National Post has run an ongoing feature spotlighting many of these so-called 'Deniers'. Very generally, conservative news sources have covered these people in a favourable light, while liberal news outlets have referenced them less favourably.

Only the truly deluded, however, pretend that no "professionals" support the other side of this debate.

One does have to appreciate the irony. You've spent years here deriding Bush for not listening to alternative opinions and you continually reveal yourself to be a different side of the exact same coin.

Read all about it!

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Byline: Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion.

That's like $2B/yr on average between 1998-2005 timeframe (see Appendix B of the PDF for a full accounting).

And that's just one of the many, Many, MANY members of the corporate world's Fossil Fuel Club (FFC)! Heck if I were to add up all of the auto manufacturers, the power utilities, the coal industry, and the oil/gas industry, the combined dollars spent by the FFC corporate members, it would easily reach into hundreds of billions of US dollars. Easily!

And yet, after all that spending where is their science, where is their evidence to support their specious claims? A large fraction of that money goes solely towards criticism of the GW science, little if any of that money goes to actual science supporting their claims. It figures, when you can't prove your case, deny, Deny, DENY!

And get this, it's actually all about intellectual ownership, most of these AGW Nihilists have been delivering the same message for up to 30+ years now, it's part of the social conservatives' mindset, once you buy into a belief system, under no circumstance are you allowed to change your mind, for you all will immediately get booted from the club, you're a stain, a flip-flopper!

Of course, we all (consumers) are also public members of the FFC, unless of course you can prove that you purely live off the land, and use absolutely NO manufactured goods (other than what you yourself create with your own hands, you know sticks and stones)!

Now where's my AGW Nihilist's bingo card, it needs some updating!

How cute, tagging everyone that disagrees with your opinion as being on the take.
Like Gore and his friends don't stand to make millions off this rubbish.

What about this guy profiled by ABC today? Is he being paid off too?

Sure. Capitalism is the enemy. Submission is the goal. You must be assimilated. This is just the new home for the left since the fall of the CCCP. If we can't win you over on ideas, we'll fear and guilt you into having economy-car deathtraps and constantly apologizing for living in the US. We'll surrender our freedoms again, this time the bugaboo is not "Terror" but "Global Warming."

There are ways for capitalism and the environment to co-exist, but wackos like Gore never want to talk about that... unless we are further demonizing all industry in capitalist nations.

No one seems to realize that communist places like China and the former Soviet Union have done more to destroy the environment than the US ever has. Eastern Europe and Central Asia under communism were cesspools. We do more to clean up our messes than any major industrialized country. We also provide clean-up technology to the rest of the world.

The global warming debate always ends in one thing- a big-govt, socialist and anti-capitalist tirade. It's the height of arrogance to think that we can override millions of years of ebb and flow in the global climate. This is all nonsense. This stuff has been going on long before us, and will be long after we are gone.

Sigh. On this side, enormous corporation, with brillions of dollars involving the direction of energy development in play. They fund "skeptic" groups that are clearly out of sync with the vast majority of climate scientists, and do so in what is clearly an economically driven and dishonest fashion, actually creating the ecosystem of front groups and web sites that many on this very thread are relying on as evidence of the legitimacy of climate change denial.

On this side, "Gore and his friends", who are alleged to be in a position to "make millions" (not clear how) by advocating for what the majority of scientists agree is an accurate portrayal of the state of our understanding of global climate change.

These two things are the same, equal and opposite.

Because now we live in crazy town.

Could you link to one of Gore's big government, socialist, anti-capatilist tirades? And I'm still waiting, in another thread, for some of the scary left things done by moveon.org.

Mr. Strawmonster.

Oooooooooooooo!