The report's been released

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200192.html?sub=AR

Quote :

"With at least 90 percent certainty, the IPCC's "Summary For Policymakers" concludes human-generated greenhouse gases account for most of the global rise in temperatures over the past half century. Hundreds of scientists from 113 countries prepared the report, which represents the most comprehensive overview of scientific climate research since 2001."

But hey, you all keep grasping at straws to keep the discussion alive.

2/2/2007 3:28:37 PM

i don't trust anything that al gore supports.

2/2/2007 3:58:22 PM

funny you say "the reports been released" then post a link to a Washington Post article

where is a link to the report?

Quote :

"and because you are saying that he is scientifically unqualified his argument above (which is in no way a scientific interpretation of data) should be discounted, that makes you a troll. "

who said his argument should be discounted? why are you putting words in my mouth?

i said he discounted HIMSELF

learn to read, holy crap

[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

2/2/2007 4:02:11 PM

Quote :

"where is a link to the report? "

if you looked at the article, it was right there:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/climate_report_020207.pdf

2/2/2007 4:21:37 PM

damn straight i include myself treetroll. because i have very little scientific training. but i guess since i have such little training i should start denying that its real right? i mean thats the only logical response.

2/2/2007 6:02:00 PM

Concerning global warming, the following quotation is from today's online edition of The New York Times:

Quote :

"[H]uman activity is the main driver, 'very likely' [emphasis added] causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950."

Sorry, folks, "very likely" doesn't do it for me.

2/3/2007 3:06:40 PM

well of course not. no one is surprised by that

2/3/2007 3:44:10 PM

So you're telling me there's a chance.

2/3/2007 4:04:43 PM

Well, the MSM is "reporting" that our planet has less than ten years left, so maybe some of you should just go ahead and check out now. You know, beat the whole apocalyptic rush and all. THE END IS NEAR!

2/3/2007 4:17:38 PM

You libertarians are all about personal responsibility. Where are your cries for it now?

2/3/2007 4:22:06 PM

whats MSM?

2/3/2007 4:38:01 PM

^^ fallacy =/= responsibility

^ "mainstream media"

2/3/2007 4:41:40 PM

So libertarians are not about personal responsibility?

2/3/2007 4:59:49 PM

when you say he discounted himself from being able to make a scientific interpretation you are arguing a moot point. he made no interpretation from the data.

why do this?

to troll, of course.

2/3/2007 9:52:26 PM

going to war is a 1% proposition. stopping pollution is a 100% proposition. its so...logical.

2/3/2007 10:07:41 PM

its been obvious for years. i dont know why people need a "study" to see this.

2/3/2007 10:19:05 PM

this above all we must not forget: scientists don't know shit about science

2/3/2007 10:38:51 PM

And they ALL have agendas other than doing good for the environment.

2/3/2007 10:49:09 PM

You mean such as the following agenda?

Quote :

"It ought to be possible to establish a global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine [emphasis added] over, say, a twenty-five year period."

Earth in the Balance, pp. 325-326, by Al Gore, 1992

Gore is not a scientist, but he plays one on TV and the big screen.


PS: No agendas in Hollywood, either--and these famous multimillionaires DO have influence.

2/3/2007 11:23:44 PM

oh please, if one person who doesn't hold an elected office can create such a huge impact on the world, your belief structure must be totally unsubstantiated.

2/4/2007 12:13:40 AM

^ Ever heard of Socrates who probably created the foundation for Western philosophy?

Ever heard of Nobel laureate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr who was largely responsible for the American civil rights movement?

Ever heard of Jesus Christ?

These men had immeasurable effects on this world. What elected offices did they hold? STFU!

2/4/2007 12:37:36 AM

Quote :

"So libertarians are not about personal responsibility?"

2/4/2007 1:55:48 AM

Quote :

"fallacy =/= responsibility"

2/4/2007 2:39:37 AM

There is nothing misleading about responsibility.

2/4/2007 4:48:07 AM

As usual, another Soap Box thread teeming with the potential for intelligent debate is trampled by a stampede of straw men.

2/4/2007 6:05:55 AM

Al Gore just grabbed the idea for Global Warming out of thin air for the purpose of getting himself elected.

2/4/2007 3:52:44 PM

holy shit hooksaw is retarded

2/4/2007 5:24:21 PM

This is not new information. Much like human involvement in global climate change. But your fact remains valid.

2/4/2007 6:35:28 PM

I must've hit a nerve.

2/4/2007 9:18:06 PM

You guys like how instead of offering anything relevent to the discussion, grandpa here derailed it into poking fun at Al Gore? /sigh

2/4/2007 9:42:04 PM

2/5/2007 3:15:30 PM

not sure if anyone pointed this out yet, but as the washingtonpost link above notes, this is only a summary of the actual report, the report itself isnt due out until may...

2/5/2007 4:09:37 PM

I doesn't matter. They naysayers won't believe it and will continue to obfuscate responsibility.

2/5/2007 4:12:27 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401213.html

Quote :

"A Washington-based think tank has been soliciting critiques of the just-released international assessment of the evidence on climate change, a move that prompted some academics and environmentalists to accuse the group of seeking to distort the latest evidence for global warming."

Better get to work on your report, hooksaw.

[Edited on February 5, 2007 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2007 4:32:04 PM

^So the AEI wants to pay scientists and academics to critique the report...whats wrong with that?

After you take a test in school you don't like to look over your answers before you turn it in?

2/5/2007 4:58:17 PM

Did I say anything was wrong with it?

I mean, it's skeptical if they're involved w/ Exxon as they are accused of being, but I don't know that for sure so I'll just let the article stand.

2/5/2007 5:09:56 PM

Quote :

"Did I say anything was wrong with it?"

Not specifically, but I got the feeling that you were implying that a bunch of people in bed with Exxon wanted to discredit the report

2/5/2007 5:11:14 PM

i wonder how much cooler the earth would be right now if we didnt put so much shit into the air

2/5/2007 5:15:16 PM

Quote :

"I got the feeling that you were implying that a bunch of people in bed with Exxon wanted to discredit the report"

Well, I wouldn't put it past them. I'd say it's a good possibility. It's happened before.

No matter what kind of reports come out of this, I'm sure you're going to trumpet it as the real truth anyway, in the face of all other evidence. Don't worry about all these other scientists and 90% probabilities, you know its false! Al Gore made it up to advance politically! Either that, or its a scam...to accomplish what, I have no idea.

I have a question for you that believe this is a farce that has been artificially exaggerated: why do you think it has been exaggerated? what is the reasoning you believe is behind the pushing of this so-called farce?

[Edited on February 5, 2007 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2007 5:18:00 PM

To get more grant money for those evil scientists who couldn't possibly have ambitions other than getting rich and pushing their own agenda.

[Edited on February 5, 2007 at 5:50 PM. Reason : (Because, you know, oil companies don't have ANY agenda to get rich)]

2/5/2007 5:49:38 PM

do you two really have to resort to strawmen to argue with dumb old TreeTwista?

I simply ask whats wrong with what the AEI is doing, which is essentially offering to pay scholars and scientists to review their peers' work

and you turn it into "the evil oil companies only care about money"

[Edited on February 5, 2007 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ps: if/when cleaner fuel sources are mandatory, oil companies will make money of those fuels too]

2/5/2007 6:15:02 PM

Quote :

"which is essentially offering to pay scholars and scientists to review their peers' work"

it brings in a bias of funding. which, while it may or may not affect the work of the scientists, it can create the impression of something wrong.

that applies to all funding sources, btw.

2/5/2007 6:37:43 PM

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

I guess the first climatologist in Canada knows nothing either. Just playing Devils advocate.

2/5/2007 9:51:57 PM

One thing I've wondered for a while, is the whole global warming thing based solely on trends or have scientists created a fake atmopshere in a lab somehow and added CO2 or other gasses to it to actually measure the effect? If the argument in favor of human-caused global warming is only based on trends, then I would think that the causality is still up in the air.

2/5/2007 11:14:09 PM

Quote :

"have scientists created a fake atmopshere in a lab somehow and added CO2 or other gasses to it to actually measure the effect?"

This experiment can actually be attempted quite easily but you run into all kinds of problems with the fact that a lab setting is a closed environment and the earth is not.

2/5/2007 11:32:36 PM

I just don't see what the big fucking deal is. We can make the temperature whatever we want it to. All we have to do is produce more reflective aerosols to counterbalance the greenhouse effects of the carbon dioxide.

2/5/2007 11:41:40 PM

i can't believe people are actually this dense. EARTH IS THE LAB. its no mishap that over thousands of years temperature and co2 levels have been directly proportional with NO EXCEPTIONS.

^except aerosols cause problems themselves.

2/5/2007 11:59:47 PM

Brrrrrrrr! It's cold out.

Where's that Greenhouse Effect when you need it?

2/6/2007 1:31:55 AM

Quote :

"First proposed by Martin in 1988, the "Geritol solution" of adding iron to the ocean had a rocky history. Many derided it automatically as foolish, arrogant, and politically risky. But in 1996 the idea finally got tested by the U.S. government, and it performed well. Near the Galapagos Islands lies a fairly biologically barren area. Over 28 square miles of blue sea, scientists poured 990 pounds of iron during a week of testing. Immediately the waters bloomed with tiny phytoplankton, which finally covered 200 square miles, suddenly green. Plankton production peaked nine days after the experiment started. One thousand pounds of iron dust stimulated over 2,000 times its own weight in plant growth, far greater than the performance of any fertilizer on land. The plankton soaked up carbon dioxide, reducing its concentration in nearby sea water by 15 percent. It quickly made up this deficiency by drawing carbon dioxide from the air. Projections show that since this process would affect only about 16 percent of the ocean area, a full-bore campaign to dump megatons of iron into the polar oceans probably would suck somewhere between 6 percent and 21 percent of the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with most recent estimates settling around 10 percent. "

http://oldsite.reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

2/6/2007 2:03:48 AM

this would destroy the ecosystem and throw off salinity along with many other things.

domino effect

2/6/2007 2:08:19 AM