3

man it feels good outside today...its like 82 degrees...it was like 92 degrees a couple days ago...i think global cooling is going on...it will be an ice age by july 4th

6/28/2006 4:07:16 PM

Hahahaha, at what point did they stop working?

When you said that we couldn't really know anything? Because the scientific community, 500 years ago and for religious reasons, came to a wrong comclusion?

6/28/2006 4:10:19 PM

^^ The heat index is 94 degrees today. It feels like a goddamn furnace outside.
And holy crap, it actually is colder in Charlotte today, according to the weather thingy.

It's actually slightly cooler in Houston than Raleigh, right now, even though we're at a higher elevation, further inland, and at a much higher latitude. Gulf Stream for the win, I guess.


[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 4:18 PM. Reason : I hate heat.]

6/28/2006 4:11:36 PM

^im in charlotte, its milder i guess
^^wait, you're admitting the "overwhelming majority" of scientists has been wrong before?

Quote :

"Because the scientific community, 500 years ago and for religious political reasons, came to a wrong conclusion?"

6/28/2006 4:11:41 PM

scientists were wrong before. thus all science is WRONG!!!!

watch OUT. tie yourself down. gravity might fail us any second now.

6/28/2006 4:13:01 PM

scientists were wrong before. thus just because scientists agree on something doesnt mean its correct

6/28/2006 4:13:37 PM

i agree. but in this instance, going with the most likely case is the safer bet. if the global warming conclusion is wrong, then it will have done us no real harm. if we just go on and on saying "well we'll never REALLY know" then we'll be that much less inclined to do something about global warming until it's even more difficult to do anything about it.

6/28/2006 4:15:26 PM

Quote :

"but in this instance, going with the most likely case is the safer bet"

why?

Quote :

"if the global warming conclusion is wrong, then it will have done us no real harm"

i hear what you're getting at...but it would still involve reconfiguring our entire transportation system and energy system...its not very easy to implement

6/28/2006 4:17:00 PM

How often are the scientific minority proven wrong?


As if it mattered and as if you weren't just trolling/being a retard.



[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 4:18 PM. Reason : omg ad hominem]

6/28/2006 4:17:29 PM

if you think im just trolling then get the fuck out of the thread

Quote :

"How often are the scientific minority proven wrong? "

1. did you mean majority?
2. i dont know if theres any way to quantify that

6/28/2006 4:20:38 PM

No, you're saying you can't trust the scientific majority because they were wrong 500 years ago.

So that means the scientific minority is more trustworthy, then?

6/28/2006 4:22:11 PM

no, he's not arguing for either side. he's arguing uncertainty -- which is pretty much impossible to refute. it's really a waste of time.

6/28/2006 4:23:53 PM

Can we really know anything?

6/28/2006 4:24:36 PM

i'm saying that just because the scientific majority believes something, even though theres no way to quantify the scientific majority in the first place, that they're not necessarily right...maybe they are maybe they aren't

i'm using simple infallible logic here...IT IS POSSIBLE THAT the "overwhelming majority" of scientists are wrong

^^at least you realize i'm not on some right wing rant about how global warming is totally a myth

i've said many times I DONT KNOW IF GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY HUMANS OR NOT

so many people are arguing it as something political...i'm just trying to be a good scientist...and unlike many many other scientific issues where there is a much more clearly defined majority opinion on a topic, global warming has plenty of people who arent convinced

if it was such a onesided issue and the majority of scientists agreed with it, we wouldnt have countless pages of threads of discussions on the issue

6/28/2006 4:25:06 PM

Quote :

"IT IS POSSIBLE THAT the "overwhelming majority" of scientists are wrong"

That doesn't make it likely.

Quote :

"if it was such a onesided issue and the majority of scientists agreed with it, we wouldnt have countless pages of threads of discussions on the issue"

Kinda like evolution?



[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2006 4:27:23 PM

remind me again who's trolling?

6/28/2006 4:27:51 PM

Quote :

"so many people are arguing it as something political...i'm just trying to be a good scientist...and unlike many many other scientific issues where there is a much more clearly defined majority opinion on a topic, global warming has plenty of people who arent convinced "

find me some proof of this.

i want a non-think-tank/lobbyist paper with references from the past, oh, 3 years.

6/28/2006 4:29:08 PM

proof of which

6/28/2006 4:30:17 PM

Quote :

"global warming has plenty of people who arent convinced"

find me a few

[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 4:32 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/28/2006 4:32:00 PM

Peer-reviewed contemporary scientific analysis that isn't funded by an industry that has an interest in the matter.

Not "this non-human phenomenon could also be causing climate change," but "here's evidence that human-released CO2 isn't contributing towards climate change."

Show us that, or stfu.

6/28/2006 4:34:39 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

those are a couple climatology scientists with PhDs

but look at this if you think there arent people who disagree with global warming

Quote :

"Reasons given by opponents of the global warming theory Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include: -IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models. For example, even those who accept that there is a warming trend point out that there is a big difference between correlation and causality. In other words, just because temperatures have generally been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Industrial Revolution has caused the change in temperature (see post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument). On the other hand, the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has indeed produced ever-growing "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming. -Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion (see consensus science). Ergo, because the issue has become so politicized, it is suspected that climatologists who disagree with the consensus as it is may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding. -Consensus is further compromised in this field of study due to students being attracted to the field by their belief that something should be done about global warming. They complete their education and add their voices to the consensus, which gives a perceived bias. -Earth's climate has been both colder and warmer than today, and these changes are adequately explained by mechanisms that do not involve human greenhouse gas emissions. -There is no significant global warming relative to the expected natural trends. -CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1% [9] -Climate science can not make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms (see GIGO). -Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity. -Some global warming studies have errors or have not been reproduced. -Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as: sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle). -The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist. Some opponents of global warming theory give more weight to data such as paleoclimatic studies, temperature measurements made from weather balloons, and satellites which they claim show less warming than surface land and sea records, though early balloon records have been shown to be possibly erroneous due to mechanical design flaws in the sensors. Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all the major questions about the global climate. Opponents frequently characterise supporters arguments as alarmist and premature, so as to emphasise what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global warming scenarios. Opponents also say that if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now because: -Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious and for less money. -A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide. -There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions. A cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Quote :

"Show us that, or stfu"

why dont you get the fuck out of the thread and quit trolling...grown ups are talking

6/28/2006 4:35:24 PM

still waiting for a peer-reviewed journal

Patrick Michaels (right from the link you provided me):

Quote :

"He is a fellow of the Cato Institute and edits the World Climate Report, published by the Western Fuels Association through WFA's Greening Earth Society"

[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 4:38 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/28/2006 4:36:20 PM

so let me get this straight

- all scientists believe humans cause global warming
- any scientist who says humans dont cause global warming is paid off by an oil company

but I'm sure none of the scientists you posted were members of any environmental organizations that fund the Democratic Party are they?

6/28/2006 4:38:37 PM

i'm not saying that. but what i am saying is that you have provided little (if any) credible evidence opposing anthropogenic global wamring. all you've said is "well you're not sure". that or you've posted articles funded by people with an interest in dispelling the idea of anthropogenic global warming -- oil companies, etc.

[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 4:43 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/28/2006 4:42:23 PM

yeah i'm not sure

and neither are you

do the reasons i posted in that wikipedia quote not at least suggest to you that there are actually credible scientists who are not proponents of the global warming theory?

if oil companies pay scientists to say global warming is fake, is it absurd to think environmentalists with their own agendas wouldnt pay off scientists as well?

6/28/2006 4:44:06 PM

yes, in short.

at least that many scientists.

[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 4:45 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/28/2006 4:45:16 PM

heres something else for you

Quote :

"Opponents of the global warming theory Some of the most vocal opponents of the global warming theory from within the climate/scientific community have been: Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia Robert Balling of Arizona State University Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [19] S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ross McKitrick Frederick Seitz (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained) See also the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus Some prominent opponents from outside the climate/science community have been: Petr Beckmann (anti-global warming treaties) Lester Hogan (anti-global warming treaties) Kary Mullis, biochemist and inventor of PCR John Lawrence Daly (now deceased) Andrey Illarionov, former economic advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin Michael Crichton, science fiction author and critic of the politicization of science, Global Warming is an issue in his 2004 novel, State of Fear David Bellamy, British environmental campaigner who has since decided to draw back from the debate on global warming. Some organisations were formed to further the opponents' views: Information Council on the Environment (defunct): Michaels, Balling and Idso all lent their names in 1991 to the scientific advisory panel of the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), an energy industry public relations group. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Science and Environmental Policy Project, founded by S. Fred Singer. "

and this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus has at least 11 scientific journal articles linked under the section called "The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes"

6/28/2006 4:46:36 PM

again. i want to see some papers. some actual findings. all you're showing me is a list of names (some of whom i've already refuted)

6/28/2006 4:47:59 PM

and this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus has at least 11 scientific journal articles linked under the section called "The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes"

whether or not these guys are right, there are CLEARLY a number of scientists who are not proponents of the global warming theory

i'm surprised you didnt know that this issue wasnt as onesided as you imply it to be

6/28/2006 4:49:08 PM

ok. in that list there is ONE scientific journal article. the rest are from news sites. maybe i'm missing something. and that scientific journal article pretty much just says "time will tell"

6/28/2006 4:52:34 PM

well i didnt click on the links before i posted it

but from the last few posts, are you not convinced that there are indeed scientists that do not believe all the hype about global warming?

6/28/2006 4:57:49 PM

Petr Beckmann!!?? Crichton? Fred Seitz? You're really digging if these names feature prominently on your list.

6/28/2006 4:59:55 PM

the list i directly copied and pasted also lists non scientists like the ones you mentioned (Some prominent opponents from outside the climate/science community have been: )

but i also sometimes like scanning over a post and picking out the one thing that i dont like

6/28/2006 5:02:59 PM

Quote :

"well i didnt click on the links before i posted it but from the last few posts, are you not convinced that there are indeed scientists that do not believe all the hype about global warming?"

yes. but that doesn't mean these beliefs are based on credible evidence.

6/28/2006 5:09:23 PM

what makes you so sure your scientists who are proponents of global warming dont have political reasons? what makes you sure they are using credible evidence?

we could go back and forth like this all day

but if there wasnt a large chunk of people who were not sold on the idea of global warming, how come there are numerous multi-page threads where both sides debate it?

if nobody credible was an opponent of global warming, why did al gore need to make a movie about it? why havent we already made the necessary changes?

6/28/2006 5:11:56 PM

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/inhofes_war_on_science.php

6/28/2006 5:13:13 PM

Every time I see this thread I think to myself, "I was a lot more scared in February when it was 80 than any time in the summer."

6/28/2006 6:26:57 PM

I consider myself in more or less the same category as TreeTwista10. There may or may not be global warming caused by humans, I don't think we have a firm enough grip on the science involved to say anything truly definitive. Certainly some data has been collected which indicates aspects of the atmosphere are changing (like CO2 or aerosols ) but what the causes those changes will incur has not conclusively been shown.

Whatever the conclusion is, the real question is what are we going to do about it? If the solution involves giving yet more regulatory power to the government I'm not for it. I'd rather live in a free country with a smaller coastline. Besides, it's not like China is going to stop poluting, we might produce 25% but watch China in a few years. How many buisnesses have already moved to other countries because of overegulation here? (granted unions and osha are also to fault).

I do think we should protect the enviroment, but it should be done in a way such that our quality of life is not diminished. We should not overegulate cars and manufacturing so that basic goods become overly expensive. Many of you advocate ethanol as an alternative for gas, you do know that still produces CO2. Another popular choice is electric cars, but where does the power come from? It's not magic, it comes from a power plant. By in large those power plants are burning fossil fuels releasing CO2. There is a way to generate power w/o releasing alot of CO2, it's called nuclear power.

So I implore you environmentally minded libs, call your congressman today and tell them to encourage the regulatory commision in NC to allow the power companies to build some more Nukes. That is a way we could realistically reduce the CO2 emissions and conserve some fossil fuels.

I've not seen Gore's flick, but I'm guessing he doesn't advocate building nuclear plants, because enviromentalisism however well intentioned has not been in the buisness of making constructive criticisms, rather it adherents are used as a tool to obtain more control for the feds. Fearmongering at it's finest.


[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 6:59 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2006 6:57:10 PM

Quote :

"That is a way we could realistically reduce the CO2 emissions and conserve some fossil fuels."

how does building nuke plants conserve fossil fuels?

6/29/2006 12:51:42 AM

It satisfies a good portion of our energy needs without having to build more coal power plants.

Its not like our homes are getting any more energy efficient.

[Edited on June 29, 2006 at 1:00 AM. Reason : 2]

6/29/2006 12:59:40 AM

Quote :

"Its not like our homes are getting any more energy efficient."

that's idiotic

and i wasn't thinking when i replied before, i was thinking conserving oil, not all fossil fuels, which includes coal. oh well.

6/29/2006 1:16:29 AM

Quote :

"how does building nuke plants conserve fossil fuels?"

If you can make electricity cheaper then people will be more likely to switch to plug-in hybrids.

If nuclear power is cheaper than most other forms of electricity generation then it will result in cheaper electricity.

Therefore, given these assumptions, allowing the construction of more Nuclear Plants can reduce oil consumption.

6/29/2006 9:13:58 AM