FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html

What I've wrote below is why you would have fit nicely in the nazi regime......



Another moronic Republican making statements similiar to something Hitler would think and say himself....if he wasn't saying them about himself that is.

(and to think, the republican party was born in Jackson, Michigan...ugh. I would have thought pre war war II Germany)

FACT: The ninties are the hottest decade ever recorded and from 2000 until now is already prevenient then 1990-1999. (just think more hurricane's, far worse storms...but no, it's not getting hotter at all)

_____________________________________________

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said he is reminded of the Third Reich when he observes the tactics of people like Al Gore in their attempts to raise awareness about global warming.

Think Progress:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is the nations most prominent global warming denier. He famously declared that global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Now, hes taken the argument a step further. In an interview with Tulsa World, Inhofe compared people who believed global warming was a problem to Nazis:

In an interview, he heaped criticism on what he saw as the strategy used by those on the other side of the debate and offered a historical comparison.
It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie, Inhofe said.

Schnitt's show is carried here in the South Florida area. I stopped listening long ago. What an idiot. He makes Limbaugh look smart. He makes Hannity look honest. (or is it the other way around?)

Wow -

Provocative - Aggresive - Confrontational - Ill Informed - Judgemental - apparently unable to think for yourself...

All at age 18?

Where, oh where, do you have to aspire to?

Sign up today... http://www.youngrepublicans.com/

Hint: The cherry flavor tastes better than the grape or orange.

BTW - You are starting to alienate even the conservatives around here.

Lay off the hooch, Tyler. It doesn't suit you.

Gotta love posts where the entire message is actually encapsulated in the title. It seems to be a red flag no matter what camp the post is coming from.

Which one is Tylerjock and which one is the Hooch?

"FACT: The ninties are the hottest decade ever recorded and from 2000 until now is already prevenient then 1990-1999. (just think more hurricane's, far worse storms...but no, it's not getting hotter at all)"

While I don't know anything about Schnitt or his show, this statement isn't necessarily true. Hottest decade ever? There is a great deal of evidence that the Earth was significantly warmer by a few degrees during other periods of history. It was also significantly colder during other periods. All without any assistance from mankind. Warming is definitely happening. The question is, are we the cause?

What bothers me most about the Global Warming "debate" (it really isn't a debate) is how extreme and intolerant most people are towards any dissent. Question the dogma and you're insulted, or worse. I guess it's okay to be an intolerant a*hole when we're talking about climate, but if it's religion, for example, intolerance = bigotry and prejudice.

Today is 82 F in Austin. Tomorrow will be 85 F. Records.

Happy Holidays from the greenhouse!

Aero:

Tylerjock


hooch:


...fine for some, not for others.

I am no saying global warming is not true. It is getting some what warmer. I am saying that MAN is not the cuase of it like Al dumb ass Gore says in his stupid movie.

Oh... k. got it.

I guess I'll just ignore the word of the environmental scientists I work with here at UCLA.

In other news, the earth is NOT flat.

Just bringing you up to speed, Tyler.

"hooch" is alcohol

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hooch

tylerjock - judging by your writing skills, I'd watch who you're calling a dumbass.

Sorry I am at work and I have to sneak around my boss. So I don't get caught being on the net. So forgive me if my grammer, spelling is not up to par. Again I am not saying the is no such thing as Global Warming. There is, but it is a caused by the earth going into a cycle. Man has very little to do with Global warming. But if you want to go buy a Carbon Credit to make you all feel better go ahead.

tylerjock

Defending your position might give you a little more credibility than calling people names.

This is a lame attempt at starting a flamewar.

EARTH IN THE BALANCE

Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.





The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man.

Global Warming . . . right here.

I'll try to stay inside more.

This one's to hsierrahiker...the aforementioned 'fact' is a true fact.

Read again and maybe you'll see I said that it was the hottest decade ever RECORDED. Obviously we don't know anything prior to that, well, because it wasn't recorded.

You must be a republican, because you opted to look at what you wanted and not what was actually written.

Maybe the lack of oxygen where you hike has something to do with that hmmmm

Having been to several global warming related conferences, highsierrahiker, there really is no *dogma* within the scientific community. In actuality, the IPCC report on climate change and the climate change academia as a whole are models of accountability, peer review, appropriate caution in the claims and thoroughness of error analysis.

New techniques of measurement and methods of metanalysis are being developed *all* the time to corroborate and enhance the data available. The limitations of the present models are manifest, well-understood within the scientific community, and there is a clear roadmap to the development of enhanced models. The computational demands of climate simulation are *enormous*.

Notice that the links on the site are not to any peer-reviewed articles disputing the particulars of any methodology---rather they are full of non-sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, claims to inappropriate authority and other circus tricks of empty rhetoric.

Don't believe it, tylerjock!

I really think you're missing the point. While your unwarrented disdain for Al Gore and anyone other left-leaning person is clouding your views, perhaps this little excerpt will help you understand what really is at issue.

For those of you that don't like a religious stance on issues, please excuse the following. I felt that it might help tylerjock to see another statement from someone that's not left oriented. Perhaps when he grows up he'll learn that, unlike our current administration, the scientific community has checks and balances and when the Catholic church which fought scientific knowledge for so long, listens to such people as Al Gore, then he might actually be on to something useful.

Catholic Bishops message on Climate Change

"The dialogue and our response to the challenge of climate change must be rooted in the virtue of prudence. While some uncertainty remains, most experts agree that something significant is happening to the atmosphere. Human behavior and activity are, according to the most recent findings of the international scientific bodies charged with assessing climate change, contributing to a warming of the earth's climate. Although debate continues about the extent and impact of this warming, it could be quite serious (see the sidebar "The Science of Global Climate Change"). Consequently, it seems prudent not only to continue to research and monitor this phenomenon, but to take steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future."

also see
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/climate/index.shtml


--by the way, i'm not now, nor have ever been a Catholic. i just hope this info helps you not be such a putz tylerjock. i know that's asking for too much, but it's the Christmas season; it could happen.

tell this to the islanders in the pacific whose islands are disappearing. And the tens of thousands who have already had to relocate.

Why are we even disputing this?

WHY should we worry about the cause?

Should we not worry about something far more important as, say, if the climatologists are right... we LOSE the ONLY planet we have (or at least we lose its comfortable climate - which would no doubt lead to devastating effects)? This is our ONLY shot at existing.

We should not take the chance. If the scientists are wrong, alright, so be it. They were wrong. It happens. Science does not equate with perfection.

However, if they're right, which evidence suggests that they are, and we do nothing - we've LOST the chance to do anything about it. And who knows what the effects will be.

Stop thinking about it as whether it's a political ploy or scare tactic and take it for what it's worth. Your planet.

Technically, we're not destroying the earth. We're irritating it. As such, the earth will destroy us if we keep it up.

Listen to George Carlin.

My favorite thing about TigerTim's post is that it's got enough big words to have tylerjock fiddling with his dictionary, erm, I mean the one he's probably borrowing, for a few hours.

Hey, tyler .....the fossil record shows that climate has always been in a state of flux.....It is a baby boomer thing to think that the world revolves around them so everything must remain exactly like it was on the day of their birth.or something has gone wrong. Baby Boomers think they invented sex too...

Not to worry. Sometimes--occasionally--baby Republicans eventually morph into human beings. I've seen it happen.

burninman: ...but so markedly over such a short period of time (meteor impacts notwithstanding)?

I personally believe in global warming but pointing to record high temperatures is not a valid argument. record high temperatures only mark the record for years in which there have been recordings. since there are not records greater than 150 years old and the earth is considerably older than that your case is moot.

It would be interesting to hear what "Tylerjock" has to say about it all in 50 years...

I agree with some of the analogies given here... The Earth is Flat.... Earth is the center of the Universe..... so many.. and "Mankind not contributing to global warming" is just the latest.

Compare satellite images of forests from the first images to today. Tell me with a straight face that you can radically alter the earth's equilibrium like that without consequence.

I cannot believe how many people in this country reject science simply because they aren't personally very good at it.

The anti-global warming thing is part of the entire Republican fear of and disdain for science. There are several intractable reasons for this: science tends to disprove Biblical stories, so it scares them. Also, science requires education, and in their minds education is "liberal indoctrination". Home-schooling is the symptom of this: home-schoolers don't merely want to keep their kids away from liberal cultural influences, they also want to keep them from becoming too "scientific" and "worldly" and "smarty".

When we wring our national hands about "what's wrong with our educational system" as we often do, no one ever discusses the pink elephant in the room, which is that we are a profoundly anti-intellectual culture. The intellectual is scorned and feared and made fun of rather than respected. How is it that no one discusses this? Talk about "inconvenient truth".

I got a friend who is a Volcanologists. One minor volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 than the yearly human output. But the thing is that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas...water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas......

I'll make an assumption about the original poster and assume you believe the US intelligence community to be worth respect. As such, the Pentegon released a report (earlier this year I think) discussing the coming challanges global warming poses to US security. That's right, the Pentegon has acknowledged this.

Really, I have few words for those unwilling to deal with global warming as a by-product of the industrial revolution (i.e. man made/caused)and a direct result of the widespread usage of fossil fuels (and you can take that in many directions from oil used for food production to automobiles)...other than, pull your head out of that guy's ass and breathe.

jprichva: ...because intellectual people don't watch bad TV, respond to its cynical advertising, and waste their money by running it up the economic food chain to the handful of greedy bums at the top (and, by proxy, their government enablers).

In other words, the Walton family* doesn't want an intellectual nation. Smart people wouldn't foolishly hand over their money to them.

(*Wal-Mart, to use an example)

burninman: There used to be plenty of trees (CO2 => O2) to offset those events.

Again, check the satellite images. We're screwing this up by not only creating the bad stuff, but removing the filters that treat it as well. Our own, man-made, "perfect storm".

Or a better metaphor: We're going into the garage, closing the doors, shutting off the ventilation system, and running the car's engine.

The US has always been a bit pragmatic but it seems like there's a general "disenlightenment" happening in the US today. Actually, this trend seems to have started in Reagan years but has found its apex in the Bush Era (I shudder at the sound).

Ruggertx, lol, I should've said someone like Angelina Jolie (although I did see Alexander and can't support such a kitchy actress for Pres...maybe Liz Taylor can run, she's the right age for the office after all).

Hum.....

Thermodynamics is a fairly straightforward concept. 19% of the Sun’s energy striking the earth is absorbed by dust, water vapor, ozone (yes, ozone, which absorbs in the UV spectrum like crazy), and other components such as carbon dioxide, methane, and any other organic compound spewed into the atmosphere.. 4% is absorbed by clouds. 8% is dissipated in the air (radiates off.) 17% is reflected back into space by clouds and particulate matter. 6% is reflected into space by the earth’s surface. Fortunately, 46% is absorbed by the earth itself.

If you raise the concentration of those components in the atmosphere that absorb along the visible spectrum from 200 nm to about 1300 nm you will raise the temperature of the planet.

Dogma, opinion, and ignorance will not change the laws of physics. But then, I never expected a politician to know the first damn thing about physics.

Here is something shocking. The pleistocene epoch started about 2 million years ago. In that time, climate shifted between about 100K years of ice, to 10K years of warmth. This continued till 11K years ago when we entered what we anthropocentrically called the Holocene Epoch. All of human civilization is contained within this geologic time. Really, we may simply be in another warm period. Although this warm period is the the most stable of all the ones in the Pleistocene, it does not mean it is going to last forever. The oceans are giving up their carbon that is stored, and temperatures are rising. We really are on a knife's edge (we are almost 2 millennia past another ice age) when you realize ice core samples show a shift from warm period to ice age occurred in as little as 10 years (the real threat is our destabilization of the environment throwing us into an ice age). So bundle up!

Nothing like being an a-hole when you don't agree with someone, huh lateralus?

"One minor volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 than the yearly human output."

Nevermind all the cow poop!

Rugger points out the problem. Lack of trees. And why is that? Because there are too many people on Earth. We all need places to live and raw materials to consume.

Assuming global warming science is not exaggerated, unless the entire world makes drastic changes, all of the talk is masturbatory. And no one wants to make a drastic change, so they start to feel high and mighty about their Priuses or the carbon credits they buy.

Hey Tylerjock and Highsierrahiker....

I guess that New York, Chicago, L.A. and Detroit all built their cities under some sort of weird smog...now I get it that pollution isn't man made!!!

How ominous is it that in that picture (above) there appears to be the image of the WTC towers and right above it, an aircraft!!

Conspiracy theorists unite!!

The artist MUST have known!!

I agree with jprichva on the fear that many Americans have of science and intelligent thought. Why else would the right wing be bitterly opposed to any scientific research along with any other form of free thinking, because the accuracy of their biblical beliefs would be put under the microscope and questioned. The right wing is scared that it would cause the USA to become more secular and more intelligent and reject their superstition plagued religious beliefs.

Let's pretend for a moment that the warming of the earth IS part of Earth's natural cycle. Regardless of it being man-made or natural, we should take better care of the air and what we put into it. The Earth is not our playground, it's not to be neglected.

Now, if we as a human race had a very small carbon footprint AND the Earth was warming up, maybe then I'd believe it was a natural cycle. But since that isn't the case, I'm taking the side of "man-made crisis."

Yes, the Earth naturally goes through cycles of warming. The Earth, however, does not warm as much as fast as it is doing now. If you don't believe man has a major part in causing this, then you obviously have not read and fully understood the science... its all there, in black and white... about as obvious as a pink elephant sitting on your car while you're in it. The accelerated rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, along with the accelerated warming of the climate, are anomalous to the post-industrial revolutionary period (circa 1800) as compared to average normal rates of warming and average normal increases in CO2, pre-industrial revolution. In other words, humans have tipped the balance of nature with our greedy, wasteful consumption of Earth's resources and we're beginning to see the consequences.

This is NOT a political issue, despite the efforts of politicians to make it so via "spin" and such useless pieces of right-wing propaganda disseminated via the media as referenced in this thread. It is a scientific issue as well as an issue of responsibility. The Earth is currently undergoing a mass extinction period... and mass extinctions are historically unique to times of global castastrophe. Read the science, do your own research, forget the politicians and think for yourself. Here's a good place to start...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html

I do think human's are adding to the problem. In fact, even if the CO2 were not responsible, the polluction is killing us. That is not debatable.

But there were higher CO2 levels and temperatures during the times the ancient egyptians were around according to ice core data.

Roadbike Rob, just so you know. Democrats are often less supportive of scientific research than Republicans. Shocking, I know, but Bush has kelped at least university science... Now public schools are completely different subject.

Democrats are less supportive of scientific research than Republicans?? Care to give any examples?

If that's true, then does that mean I registered with the wrong party???

And regarding the CO2 levels... I said accelerated rise in CO2 levels... not total amount, which has been higher according to ice core samples at various times in history. The accelerated rise in CO2, however, points to industrialization as its primary cause, which in turn logically points to the influence of humans on the environment.

If America is really serious about the problem of global warming, for starters it is time to strongly discourage anymore suburban sprawl further away from the urban cores. It is time for the famous American dream to change as well. Home ownership and automobile ownership are not all what they are cracked up to be. Owning a single family house and an automobile is nothing more than a serious financial drain. It is time for the middle class both white and black to realize that there is no running away from serious problems. It is time to move back to both the central cities and the old first ring suburbs and revitalize and redevelop them since they contain available existing infrastructure. We also need to expand the development of light rail rapid transit and reduce our overwhelming reliance on automobiles and roads. Just doing these steps would help cut down on carbon pollutants in the atmosphere.

This must be the most active thread I've seen since the new workout program was posted, haha.

But seriously, would it really hurt us that much to drive a smaller car? Take public transportation a little more often? Walk to the store that's only two blocks away? Be a little less wasteful?

Why is it that America is so wasteful, anyway? We produce like 2/3 of the world's trash (don't quote me on the stats, I just remember reading something like that). Is it really that hard to recycle?

I lived in Japan for 5 months and separating your trash into combustables/non-combustables, etc is second nature. Yeah, I'll admit it was a pain at first, but it's really not that hard. Once you get use to it, you don't even think about it anymore. The issue is about how we are raised in this country. We are raised to believe the world revolves around us. We aren't part of the world community, we ARE the world community. So no one gives a sht.

For being the world's richest and most powerful country, we sure are far behind socially as most other countries. There's a multitude of things that play a part in our carelessness and ignorance (*cough*tyler*cough*)but anyway, I should be studying for finals right now, interesting discussions though.

To me it beggars belief that people deny Climate change is occuring and mans actions are accelerating it.

People use the same arguments of denial to justify exuberant lifestyles that generate waste when landfill sites for rubbish can no longer meet the demand. Their is congestion on the roads and yet they still point teh finger of blame elsewhere. The air in our cities is at hazardous levels and respiratory illness is on the rise at an alarming rate. In fact transport is set to be the next tobacco with both legal and health industries dealing with the fall out.

Yet people still say climate change isnt happening!

Climate change is happening its inevitable its part of the planets evolutionary cycle

is mans impact on it a significant factor? questionable in the grand scheme of things

is he accelerating it? again questionable although all the scientific evidence does point this way

Are our current behaviours creating real issues for us now? Undoubtedly

People its time to take your head out of the sand acknowledge that there are environmental issues we are creating and that we can reduce, not eliminate, these impacts.

hey asshole - it's 75 degrees in charlotte, nc 2 weeks prior to xmas. people who don't recycle go to hell.

Tyler my man...
It's time to get over your hatred of Al Gore
Yes ... you've said it yourself that global warming is "probably" true (I can hear the fingernails snapping off from you just sayin' that much)

But with geologic and climatologic changes there has to be a source of this change
we've had global warming that has been recorded by every source of data that you can think of
recorded weather for the last few decades
Ice cores
tree rings
migration patterns
sea level changes

and what has caused such a drastic change???
has the earth suddenly drifted closer to the sun?...no
has volcanic activity suddenly increased...while there has been an up tick over the years the amount is NO WHERE near the activity to bring on such a change
changes in the ocean currents?...not yet

Hmmm...now what could it be?
Not that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - which is measurable BTW has drastically shot up in the last 40 years?

Naahh...'cause that wouldn't fit into the little one track minds of these right wing lunatics who couldn't see a correct scientific study if it bit them in the ass

In all fairness to everyone on both sides of this debate, it's important to point out that there is a scientifically valid association between planetary temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Associations are not necessarily synonymous with causalities however.

So either A) CO2 is causing the temps to go up, or B) the higher temps are somehow causing more CO2 to be released in the environment, or C) an independant and unknown event is causing both.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (which asserts that humans are responsible for higher CO2 emissions that cause the warming) is the most reasonable theory to date to explain this phenomenon, but it is still a theory and not fact.

I think it is much more helpful to be logical about this rather than resort to name-calling and hyberbole.

Just my 2 cents.

fitnfun.... I'm glad that you're using analytic thought about this but warmer temps wouldn't generally increase the release of CO2...
warmer temps on their own would cause a boon to the global vegetative life hear on earth esp the oceanic plankton which in all likelihood would increase Oxygen and not CO2

Try living for ten years in a sub-alpine climate... there's some scary shit changing where I live in idaho. We've been stuck in an ever-worsening drought despite recieving the same amount of precipitation each year. Wanna know what the problem is? No snowpack!

Our winter season has shrunk noticably, and most of the precipitation's coming down as rain rather than snow. Everyone here's still totally convinced global warming's a load of shit, yet we're lucky to even get six inches of snow for two months straight.

And this is all thanks to a one-degree rise in average temperature!

Clearly the global temps are rising (on average, although there are small pockets where the reverse is true), but again we have to separate fact from theory.

GQJock: while you are correct that increased temps would and will cause an increase in land-based vegetative life (which consume CO2 and release O2) the same cannot be said of all marine-based plants.

I personally believe that the Anthropomorphic Theory is the best one, and so likely to be true, but you have to scientific about this instead of sensationalisic.

Just to throw it out there...

There are studies showing that the pollution in the air might be helping to keep the earth cooler than it would be otherwise with the earth absorbing and partially reflecting sunlight and the sun's radiation. There's a good (if a bit sensationalistic) documentary on the subject by the BBC called "Global Dimming" (I think); also James Lovelock talks a bit about it in his book called "The Revenge of Gaia". I'm not saying pollution is a good thing but by melting ice were creating a negative feedback loop which may be further compounded by an even warmer earth abetted by less cloud coverage. Anyway, that's not as clear as it should be but the point is humans have seriously fucked up and we shouldn't be so focused on "What ifs" but rather damage control.

bfg1 -

you are correct, its really about how ignorant people are. people will not change (recycle, go solar, etc) until forced to...like running out and not having a choice anymore.

people are so spoiled and ungrateful of this world we live on and care more for their car, material shit, conveniences, than of the planet that gives them all that...life, family, love, things, food, etc.

however, sadly, one has to be rich to be really green..i cant afford solar for my house....but, i wish at least all big corporations would do it..

Why does anyone give a shit what some 18 year old kid thinks? He's been living out of someone elses pocket all of his life and simply regurgitates whatever right wing, retarded diatribe he hears. He's too young and too immature to form a cogent, educated opinion.

I would venture to guess that his parents are ultra religious, born again Bushies. Once he ventures out in the world and sees what it really is, his tune will change. OR, he'll become a Larry Craig or some other closet politician who will pound his fist in defiance of the deviant gay society because he can't come to grips with his own sexuality. The Republican party is repleat with 'em.

Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

So, even if global warming is just a natural cycle, what do we lose by developing new energy technology and decreasing our energy consumption and CO2 emissions right now? Nothing really... we will gain renewable, sustainable technology and decrease other pollutants like sulfur oxides and nitrous oxides.

On the other hand, if it is not a natural cycle and the 6.5 gigatons of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere every year are causing an increased greenhouse effect, then we stand to gain a great deal. Namely by saving billions of dollars in ecological disaster relief, and avoiding the inevitable wars that will spring up over natural resources.

CO2 1900 = 280 ppm
CO2 2000 = 380 ppm

Hmmmm.........

Talk about propaganda. Yes because obviously all our Co2 emissions that degrade our atmospheric Ozone mean nothing. It's just all republican propaganda who would do anything to save money even if the situation gets worse. The truth is unmisable just by stepping out the front door, 80 degrees in virginia while in winter says something, not to mention the lack of snow for the past four years. Can;t beleive people beleive skeptical, cynicle nonsense.

America and Dubai are at the forefront of our little warming issue both within the worlds top 10 carbon emitters, though you can ahve sanctity of knowing that dubai is before the usa surprisingly. However, india is 129th on the list even with all the industrial movements taking place.

Wyolifter - great post.

Prudence is often left out of this debate. To me, 2 good corollaries to global warming is in human health and the Y2K scare.

Y2k - did we really know the financial markets/computers were going to implode as the clock struck 1/1/00? No. Did that uncertainty stop people/companies from planning accordingly? No.

Human Disease - if a loved one contracts and illness and sees a doctor the doctor looks at the symptoms and prescribes medicine and/or behavioral modifications. Does the doctor always know what the true cause of the symptoms really is? No. Does that stop him or the patient from taking action. No.

Both are clear examples of acting without complete information and erring on the side of caution. Our impact, however big or small, on the earth (in all facets) should be treated in the same manner. Is it not prudent to limit your 'footprint' on the earth? Frankly, the only argument anyone uses against decreasing our impact on the earth is economic, and to me that's a cop-out. We only have one earth, and how can you put a price on its future condition?

Tylerjock - while everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, yours appears to be nothing but emotion and regurgitation.... My advice...go rub one out - it just may calm you down a little, then start the process of critically evaluating what you read.

ok you would think that hottest planet in the solar system was mercury since its the closest to the sun but in fact its venus... why? because it has a dense atmosphere full of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases.... just something to think about

Why does everybody turn this into a left verse right issue? Its not that the President and Republicans don't think that carbon emission are effecting the environment but just 30 years ago it was global cooling. So why get on the global warming bandwagon when in 10 years who knows what it will be? The Democrats have nothing to hold onto no true base, except for tax and spend, so they try to build them and they're trying to build one with global warming its a fad. On Al Gore he does not care one bit about the environment. He has found a way to drive around in a motorcade, waisting gas and emitting pollution, paid for by US, but yet he is set to make a hundred million dollars this year. He has taken advantage of our free markets and turned himself and the environment into a commodity. Ironic because usually Democrats are against our free markets, I guess when it benefits them its ok.

Nice debate guys. I agree with the above poster though, it's a shame that politicians have to get involved in what really should be a non-political issue.

Personally I think we are using the world's resources too quickly, burning too much oil and wood and not replenishing it. Recycling and moderation are not just helping the environment they are making the earth's resources go further. Who wants to keep paying more and more for oil? That's what will happen if we don't stop consuming at this outlandish pace.

As RuggerATX mentioned. Any damage we do the the environment and earth will come back to bite us, as the plantet will correct itself if it needs to.

As for Tylerjock. Ignore him. On one of the other forums a poster mentioned he'd got 'alledged' pictures from him of obviously different people, so TJ may infact be a fat middle-aged republican and not the fit teen as advertised.

Lozx

I actually agree with Tylerjock's position that global warming, while it has become blatant, is not caused by the actions of human beings. Let's not forget that the Earth just came out of an ice age not 10,000 years ago. For all we know we could be approaching a natural temperature peak caused by natural fluctuations in climate. The fact of the matter is that no one really knows what is causing the rise in overall temperatures. After all, we only have about 100 years of meteorological data to support the idea of global warming. One hundred years hardly compares to millions of years of climate shifts, and I remain skeptical of those that look to human causes. To say that humans caused the present "warming of the globe," is not only a moot point, but is also as non-provable as other theories as to the cause of global warming.

In the end, though, will it really matter who or what caused global warming? I think we should take back and look at the bigger picture. Admit it: none of us are going to give up our cars, our electricity, or our modern way of life that petroleum has bestowed upon us, even if you are a liberal sodomite that blames the human race for all the world's ills.(To think that we have such a great influence is kind of arrogant, in my opinion.) You, too, soak up kilowatts of valuable energy provided by fossil fuels whilst you sit at your computer and type a response to Tylerjock.

Petroleum will only last so long. Then what? If there is one good thing that has come out of the global warming debate it is that it has forced us to search for alternate sources of energy to meet the needs of a growing human population. Like it or not, the Earth's human population, presently, is at a steady incline, and people continue to both desire and need energy. We will inevitably use up fossil fuels; at least we've accepted this fact. For now, they are a relatively cheap and powerful means to run the world we have setup for ourselves. One day, they'll be gone, just like the global warming debate. Instead of pointing the finger of blame as to who or what is responsible for global warming (which I will still say is mother nature...but I digress), we should look at ways to progress ourselves into a lucrative future. Can anyone disagree? Or do I just sound like a hippy?

By the way, ol' PDXPALLY, Tyler may or may not be as naive as you make him out to be, but I think you presumed a bit much about Tyler, especially for never meeting the kid. If anything, you should commend the twink for not conforming to typical left-wing jargon often spewing from the mouth of younger queens. I believe you said it best when you typed the following:

"Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

ALSO, just one more thing, Mr. Knowledgeable; nowhere is the letter "a" found in the word "replete".

Good gawd I did'nt know they even made people as stupid as you!!!! Try not to believe all the bullshit you find on the net and start reading real books... maybe that will help with your inability to make a logical point, and with your grammer!!!! Tell me... how does one "thing"?

what about MANBEARPIG????? is that mad up also?

jprichvaWhen we wring our national hands about "what's wrong with our educational system" as we often do, no one ever discusses the pink elephant in the room, which is that we are a profoundly anti-intellectual culture. The intellectual is scorned and feared and made fun of rather than respected. How is it that no one discusses this? Talk about "inconvenient truth".

I agree that's a pink elephant in the room that's related to global warming. Another one that also has not been mentioned--but is related to energy generation and consumption--is the problem of world population growth.

And the solution to that, which is also inherently linked to poverty, is the liberation of women.

ManBearPig is the scourge of our generation. If nothing is done to stop ManBearPig and it's evil ways, I fear for the future of Humanity... and for the future of Mother Earth herself!

The Percentage is very low that Global warming is being caused by Man. Granted we do have a very small part in the warming cycle say around 2%. The rest is all up to nature and the way the plant warms and cools it self. The whole An Inconvenient Truth-Al Gore which is now being made into a Religion is just crazy. That movie has been proven already to have so many lies its not funny. Even the UN study on Global warming is not true. More than half of the scientist, which wrote the report have come foward to say they were incorrect. Hell even some of them are sueing to have their name removed from the list. But if if makes you all feel better GO WASTE YOUR MONEY AND BUY A CARBON CREDIT TO SET OFF YOUR CARBON IMPRINT.

No matter how you look at it - and you really can't argue intelligently against this point - the development of high-efficiency, carbon neutral technology based on sustainable, renewable fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel (preferably from algae), is a must for America's and the World's future.


Carbon tax, cap and trade, and other governmental regulatory measures are kind of beside the point I'm trying to make, and are all controversial. I don't know who these scientists are that want their name pulled off the "global warming" list, but it might be interesting to see how many of them have oil money in their bank accounts now.....

bluecady..tyler..

to look at all sides is good...i mean..if say, another ice age were upon us, i think we would all be looking for ways to warm things up.

however boys, the chemical pollutions going into the air and environment are worse than a temp increase and potentially more toxic to us currently. people are so frenzied over warming, they forget the other issues.

so, global warming aside, we have other issues of biochemical toxicity that are in relation to the wasteful industries creating these gases. and city soot from diesel and oil burning causes asthma, cancers, etc..so even without warming, we should be looking at alternatives and supporting that transition.

and finally, we are removing too much forest and destroying ocean plankton (due to ocean dumping)..which are important carbon sinks. if those populations were healthy, then the carbon output might not be such a big deal.

the oceans are becoming too acidic and many areas have become "dead zones". so, we have other issues of industry besides global warming that ARE NOT theory, and are not left wing liberal propaganda, they are fact and should be addressed.

I like this thread if for no other reason than the exercise of logic and rational thought. Unfortunately many of the posts are lacking in either, but are instead filled with vitriol and propaganda. (Exceptions appreciated, however.)

Tyler & Bluecaddy: Please refer to my earlier posting on this thread, and instead of calling the opposition ignorant, please offer an alternative theory to explain the documented association between average global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Are there any posters here with a PhD in a scientific field, by any chance? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom
By SIMON CALDWELL - More by this author »

Last updated at 11:01am on 13th December 2007

Comments


Attack: Pope Benedict criticised climate-change prophets of doom
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.



Adrift: Polar bears on melting iceberg
"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace".

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace
The record melting of Arctic sea ice observed this summer and fall led to record-low levels of ice in both September and October, but a record-setting pace of re-freezing in November, according to the NASA Earth Observatory. Some 58,000 square miles of ice formed per day for 10 days in late October and early November, a new record.

Still, the extent of sea ice recorded in November was well shy of the median extent observed over the past quarter century, as the image from Nov. 14 (above, right) shows. The dramatic increase in ice is evident, when compared to the record-low amount observed Sept. 16 (below, right). In both images, 100% sea ice is shown in white, and the yellow line encompasses the area ion which there was at least 15% ice cover in at least half of the 25-year record for the given month.

The record melting of Arctic sea ice this summer was widely viewed as a harbinger of global warming, though unusual wind patterns played a role and many factors affecting fluctuations in Arctic ice are poorly understood by scientists. Still, so much ice melted that the fabled Northwest passage opened for the first time in history, and the melting broke a record, set just two years ago and by a country mile, that at the time was seen as unprecedented and worrying.

The area of persistent open water north of Alaska and eastern Siberia, according to NASA, is unusual for this time of year, though not unprecedented. This area was also largely free of ice in November 2002 and especially November 2006.

Here's how NASA explains the record re-growth of ice over that 10-day period in October and November:

Record sea ice growth rates after a record low may sound surprising at first, but it is not completely unexpected. The more ice that survives the summer melt, the less open water there is for new ice to grow. When summertime ice extent hits a record low, on the other hand, large areas of open water provide room for the ice to grow once temperatures cool off enough. While summer warming of the upper ocean surface can cause wintertime sea ice regrowth to lag initially, as the fall season progresses and sunlight weakens, the rate of energy loss from the ocean increases. That heat loss coupled with a large area of open water creates ideal conditions for sea ice to form rapidly over large areas.

Sun, Not Man, Main Cause of Climate Change, New Study Says
Monisha Bansal
Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - According to a new study on global warming, climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia found that the climate change models based on human influence do not match observed warming.

That is contrary to the views held by former Vice President Al Gore, who accepted the Nobel Prize on Monday along with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and who thinks that climate change is largely caused by human action.

Gore wants nations to tax carbon dioxide emissions and not build any new coal plants, among other steps. "It is time to make peace with the planet," Gore said in his Nobel speech, as reported by the Associated Press. "We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war."

The new report, which challenges the claims of Gore and the IPCC, was published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

The report was written by David Douglass at the University of Rochester, John Christy at the University of Alabama, and Benjamin Pearson and S. Fred Singer at the University of Virginia.

"Our findings basically are that fingerprints - that is to say the pattern of warming - that's predicted by greenhouse models does not match the fingerprints of observations, so there is a disconnect between greenhouse models and the actual reality of observations," Singer told Cybercast News Service.

"This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very important in producing climate change," he said. "It's a lot smaller than what the models calculate."

Singer said the reason why the models "overestimate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is that the models ignore what are called negative feedbacks which occur in the atmosphere, such as clouds, which reduce the effect of the greenhouse gases."

"Their models just don't consider them properly," he said.

But Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, told Cybercast News Service, that the study is "radically out of step with the complete scientific consensus."

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not just a report. It's not just a random gathering of scientists. It's the largest scientific body ever assembled," he said. "Their most recent assessment determined that there's 90 percent certainty that global climate change is happening and that it is caused by human beings."

But Singer said, "We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records, and we have geologic records going back millions and millions of years. We know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.

"We are fairly sure that what's causing the warming are changes in the sun," he said. "These are very subtle changes that are very difficult to observe. The sun is really a quite variable star."

Hendricks, however, said because of the IPCC report, "the assertion that this is caused by increased solar activity or these sorts of things is out of step with the vast consensus."

"It's dangerous to get into a game of dueling science," he added. "We don't want to be gambling with the fate of the planet."

But Singer said because global warming is a natural event. "There is little point to try to control emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which means that all of this legislation and all of these efforts to find substitutes for fossil fuels are pointless, useless and very, very expensive," he said.

Hendricks countered, saying that alternative energy will be a multi-billion dollar industry and "an opportunity to revitalize our global competitiveness" through innovation and job creation.

Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)

"Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained
‘IPCC is unsound'

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

Ok fine: so the Sun is the cause of higher temps. That is a plausible theory, except for two things. First, we monitor the output of radiation from the Sun on a daily basis, and although it does vary slightly it is not sufficient to explain the gradual increase in global temps here on Earth.

Second, if the Sun were the cause, I'm still not sure how that explains the increased CO2 levels.

We need a working theory to explain both associations (again, as I mentioned a day or two ago on here), and thus far the anthropogenic theory seems best.

Now I'm not trying to me mean here, but do me a favor: Stop looking up articles online, and think for yourself for just a minute, then post an answer.

I do not think anyone one person, one polictical party, one scientist, or a group of scientist can tell us. Global warming is going to be one like the chick. Which one came 1st. The chicken or egg.

Perhaps. But I would assert that science has already answered the question of the chicken and the egg (unless of course you believe in Creationism, in which case the chicken STILL came first).

And I suspect that science will once again answer this current