How about Gore Vidal? Is he banned from schools?

[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 7:59 AM. Reason : ?]

1/20/2007 7:59:10 AM

Quote :

"he first definition is the correct definition. The planet is getting hotter for some reason. That is what Global Warming means. So, according to your quote, that would be correct. There is a consensus that the world is getting hotter. The second definition is a theory. The problem with idiots like you is that you interchange the two definitions as if they were the same thing. Saying that Global Warming is occuring is NOT the same as saying that human influence is making the world hotter, you fucking dumbass. Global Warming as influenced by mankind holds much less weight than evolution. In fact, there is more evidence that other factors play a significantly larger role than man does. Does man have SOME effect? Probably. Is it a LARGE effect? No one knows. I can pretty much sum up the majority of the "Global Warming as a result of man" arguement. . . "The world is getting hotter, and man is producing more waste. They must be related." "

Couldn't have said it any better. I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" nor do I want to. I've never bought in to the theory that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels and that we can stop global warming if we stop the pollution. I think that is a snobish attitude to have. What makes us think that we control the warming of the entire planet? Global warming has been occuring for millions of years. Wasn't North America once covered with ice?
I think the whole Global Warming Committee appointed by Nancy Pelosi is bullshit. Its an incredible waste of tax dollars to have some frou-fra self righteous liberal professors talk about the "inconvenient truth" Give me a break.

1/20/2007 10:13:25 AM

Yeah, it's totally impossible for little ole' us to have an impact on the environment



right to left

1/20/2007 2:05:50 PM

TreeTwista10: its also completely different from trying to convince people that all scientists agree that humans are causing destruction to the planet

joe_schmoe: all 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published in the past 10 years, every article either confirmed that human activity was the cause of global warming, or the article did not specify the root cause.

thanks for playing...goodbye

1/20/2007 2:09:10 PM

How can you use that to discredit his point?

The cause of global warming is not within the scope of every article discussing global warming. Why is there not a single article against anthropogenic climate change?

1/20/2007 2:20:36 PM

^^^I don't think anyone is claiming that we don't have an effect of the environment. The question is whether or not we are affecting temperature at a global scale. Your chart proves that we are increasing the CO2 levels. Give yourself a cookie for that one . . . no one would have EVER suspected that.

Your chart would have a point if there was a direct relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. From the charts that I have seen, I believe that they are NOT directly related. As your chart shows, the CO2 levels rise and fall throughout time with no human interference for those first thousand years. If you were smart, you would have found the chart that also listed temeratures. While the temperatures do follow the trend of the CO2, that trend STOPS where the human emmisions are taken into effect. That massive rise in CO2 DOES NOT have an 1:1 (or even close) relationship with temperature.

They are "children" of a parent contributer. IE increasing the parent increases both the children, but increasing the one child seperatly does nothing to the other child. Its like a waterfall feeding into two buckets. If you increase the flow of the waterfall, it will increase flow to both of the child buckets. If you added water to one seperately, the other bucket sees no change.

How about we blame the main contributer of temperature to the planet?

Solar activity in recent times vs temperature:



We just happen to be hitting a 1000 year high of solar activity right now. This is what is causing the recent hikes in temperatures. You wanna blame humans for that too?

1/20/2007 3:45:29 PM

^ CapnObvious has nailed it hands down

1/20/2007 7:33:47 PM

Quote :

"The cause of global warming is not within the scope of every article discussing global warming. "

1/20/2007 8:31:34 PM

^^^
the reason scientists dismiss sunspot activity as the primary force for global warming is because the cyclic influence is much less than the influence of the greenhouse gases in terms of radiative forcing



Even though we know little about the cycles of sunspots, you can see how much more of an influence the gases on the left have over the solar variation on the right

oh, and heres a chart from Karl and Trenberth showing a correlation between CO2 and temperature



it doesn't exactly fit because of surface factors such as el nino and thermohaline circulation

[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 9:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2007 9:24:12 PM

all of this seems to add up to the conclusion that a certain amount of the current global warming is due to natural forces. however, it is being exacerbated (sp?) by human behavior. the reason that this is important is the assertion that human forces are acting much faster than nature can correct for. if that assumption is true then something must be done to combat global warming. however, the only way to test this is to not do shit. if we are right then hooray. if we are wrong then we are fucked. seems like a much better idea to attempt to slow our effect

1/20/2007 9:39:34 PM

Okay, so I decided to watch this movie today. Reason it was probably banned was because it was a fluff piece for Gore. The into and the segments in between the presentation were terrible, specially the part about the '00 election. Bringing politics into this just hurts those who want to do something about the potential problems that we face...

1/20/2007 10:02:26 PM

^^^I am going to be completely honest with you . . . I can't really understand your first chart.

Here is a better chart for CO2 vs Temperature that shows thousands of years as opposed to 100+ years:



There is obviously a trend with the two. However, if you look at the end, there is a major jump in CO2 with no real effect on the temperature. Its really hard to see much since human influence is but a hiccup in the timeline of Earth, but its the best we have.

And saying that scientists are dismissing sunspot activity (AKA solar activity) as the primary force for global warning is just a bunch of crap. If you look at the chart there is a painfully obvious trend in temperature. We are obviously hitting the top of the next spike in a natural temperature trend. No scientist will argue against this fact. Once again, the question is whether or not humans are altering this trend.

1/21/2007 1:16:19 AM

^^ Ytsejam

i agree with you in part. there were some obvious shills for gore's personal politics that will not help sell his documentary to the skeptical crowd of republicans who don't like him anyhow.

while the scientific evidence and conclusions was representative, accurate and concisely explained, Gore's personal narratives do distract somewhat from the primary message.

that said, i've thought about it more after letting it sink in, and i think what he did was good overall.

because no matter what, theres gonna be a core of conservative republican cranks who arent going to listen to anything that science tells them if it contradicts whatever worldview they've already formed from their bible-based value system.

no matter what, anythign that has Al Gore's name on it is going to be thrown out automatically as "biased"

and after watching it all, I appreciate hearing Gore's perspective on all the events that has influenced his efforts -- up to, including, and beyond the 2000 election. Gore personally felt he needed to "confess" and I think making the video was cathartic. I gained respect for him. I think he'll wind up being a good statesman and public policy advocate

seriously, what has Dan Quayle (Bush I's veep) or Walter Mondale (Carter's veep) ever done since being vice pres? Gore has literally given over 1000 public presentations of this issue since 2000.

.

1/21/2007 3:45:40 AM

^^

Quote :

"And saying that scientists are dismissing sunspot activity (AKA solar activity) as the primary force for global warning is just a bunch of crap."

If you don't believe me, read what the ncdc has to say:

Quote :

"Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q10

[Edited on January 21, 2007 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ]

1/21/2007 11:10:05 AM

If you haven't been able to tell yet, I am not a fan of that article. That being said...

It says that solar irradiance has a much smaller effect on the environment than greenhouse gases. I find this exceptionally hard to believe, especially given the two charts that I posted earlier. There is an obvious coorelation b/w sun activity and temperature. One problem with the article, though, is that it ignores a crucial bit of information. Solar activity influences greenhouse gases on the planet.

And lets just ignore all of our arguments at this point. Lets just ignore what has the effect on temperature. The charts used for that article span 20 years. The anarctic data spans 500,000 years. The anarctic data proves the temperature trend and proves that what we are experiencing is natural. And your article (the parts of it I read), doesn't disagree with this. It just asserts that it believes that greenhouse gases affect the Earth's temperature more than the sun ( ). Which, as stated before, ignores the sun's efffect on greenhouse gases.

Really, I'm about done with this thread. If you can honestly look at the anarctic data and still say that humans are the cause of this upward temperature trend, you should take a statistics course . . . or just drop out of college all together.

1/21/2007 12:27:39 PM

But living on Venus is fun!!!

1/21/2007 1:34:30 PM

Quote :

"Really, I'm about done with this thread. If you can honestly look at the anarctic data and still say that humans are the cause of this upward temperature trend, you should take a statistics course . . . or just drop out of college all together."

If you know anything about statsitcs, you know that correlation doesn't equal causation.

Quote :

"Solar activity influences greenhouse gases on the planet. "

but not as much as anthropogenic emissions

Quote :

"The anarctic data proves the temperature trend and proves that what we are experiencing is natural."

That data is way too general to describe the phenomenon of the past few centuries.

1/21/2007 2:15:12 PM

Al gore's movie = theory

1/21/2007 2:25:51 PM

gravity = theory.

Point?

1/21/2007 2:39:54 PM

I believe this is one theory that we don't want to allow to happen to prove

1/21/2007 2:52:07 PM

Why not? The fat cats who are making bank off of denial will be dead and their money made. What do they have to lose? Fuck the future generations. Let them clean up the mess. Right Twista?

1/21/2007 3:59:46 PM

i'm an agnostic with no corporate interests in any oil companies and i'm not completely convinced of global warming

i thought it was only bible thumper hillbillies who owned stock in oil companies who didnt blindly believe something they dont understand?

HockeyRoman???

Quote :

"gravity = theory"

ok...so something like gravity, which you and i have never seen disproven, is still just a theory...but its 33 degrees outside right now and something like global warming is a fact? hahaha

1/21/2007 4:13:00 PM

Quote :

"Calculus isn't in the bible. "

Post of the year, possibly the decade.

1/21/2007 4:19:07 PM

^^ Yeah, that's it. There is absolutely no way that global climate change could possibly be occuring since it is 33 degrees at your house right this moment.

1/21/2007 7:14:55 PM

I think its stupid and arrogant of a college student to think that they have somehow poked holes and refuted a theory that the world's most brilliant scientists have peer reviewed and tested repeatedly.

1/21/2007 7:56:56 PM

Quote :

"but its 33 degrees outside right now and something like global warming is a fact? hahaha"

It's the middle of January you fucking moron.

1/21/2007 7:58:04 PM

just when you start thinking that maybe, just maybe, TreeTwista10 isn't a complete and total retard because he made a couple semi-coherent points ....

then he goes and says

Quote :

"but its 33 degrees outside right now and something like global warming is a fact? hahaha "

and then we're just right back where we were: the guy truly is an idiot.




[Edited on January 21, 2007 at 10:09 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2007 10:08:06 PM

the only point of that post was to show how HockeyRoman is more confident that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, than he is that gravity exists...but you only pay attention to an out of context fraction of a post...what a surprise...joe_schmoe i'm still waiting for you to explain how i'm not convinced that humans are causing devastating global warming, yet I'm not a bible thumping Christian redneck with financial interests in a fossil fuel company?

Quote :

"I think its stupid and arrogant of a college student to think that they have somehow poked holes and refuted a theory that the world's most brilliant scientists have peer reviewed and tested repeatedly."

My MEA professors with PhD's in different oceanographic and atmospheric sciences poked holes in that theory in my undergrad classes before I graduated, dickwad

1/21/2007 10:58:50 PM

Would you concede that humans should be responsible for what they are putting into the atmosphere?

1/21/2007 11:05:42 PM

I would agree to that, I don't think its conceding since I've never claimed otherwise

1/21/2007 11:08:15 PM

Quote :

"ok...so something like gravity, which you and i have never seen disproven, is still just a theory...but its 33 degrees outside right now and something like global warming is a fact? hahaha"

Actually the whole reason of dark matter is based on a flaw concerning gravity. Some scientists speculate the laws of gravity should be modified.

1/22/2007 12:39:35 AM

And then last night i had that strange dream
Where everything was exactly how it seemed
Where concerns about the world getting warmer
The people thought they were just being rewarded
For treating others as they like to be treated
For obeying stop signs and curing diseases
For mailing letters with the address of the sender
Now we can swim any day in november

1/22/2007 12:40:25 AM

Quote :

"the only point of that post was to show how HockeyRoman is more confident that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, than he is that gravity exists...but you only pay attention to an out of context fraction of a post...what a surprise...joe_schmoe i'm still waiting for you to explain how i'm not convinced that humans are causing devastating global warming, yet I'm not a bible thumping Christian redneck with financial interests in a fossil fuel company? "

That's because there aren't that many jackasses (actually none that I know of) running around disputing gravity for the purposes of embracing irresponsibility.

I personally think that regardless of the degree of human-caused climate change (because all the evidence shows that we have some effect, but the degree of that effect is in dispute), we should try and be as environmentally responsible as possible. All the politics surrounding global warming though will likely obscure to true solutions for a while yet.

Quote :

"And saying that scientists are dismissing sunspot activity (AKA solar activity) as the primary force for global warning is just a bunch of crap. If you look at the chart there is a painfully obvious trend in temperature. We are obviously hitting the top of the next spike in a natural temperature trend. No scientist will argue against this fact. Once again, the question is whether or not humans are altering this trend. "

That graph is not very convincing on its own. The trend line for the sea temperature seems to be drawn wrong for the initial part, and the changes in sun spot count could be due to advancements in technology for measuring sun activity. Without knowing the methodology, that plot is completely useless.

The second graph you posted doesn't necessarily support your position either. The CO2 rise historically almost always trails the temperature rise, and almost never is higher than the temperature, but if i'm reading the last few data points correctly, the CO2 has spiked considerably above the temperature rise, and we are apparently at a peak right now for temperature. So any further rising in temperature SHOULD be a concern.

[Edited on January 22, 2007 at 1:11 AM. Reason : ]

1/22/2007 1:00:36 AM

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Another thread with a bunch of assholes in their early twenties who think they are just as smart with science as the people who do this shit for a living...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa012&articleID=C47A3BA2C793B5B9E21260F903C37D4D

Quote :

"Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority."

Quote :

"Several scientists and writers interviewed at the society's conference, which ends on Thursday, stressed that most researchers believe there is little scientific debate about the causes of global warming. That does not mean there is a consensus."

Quote :

""The vast majority of credible scientists from thousands of peer-reviewed papers agree that the strong balance of evidence is that the Earth is warming and the major cause of that is anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions." "

...I'm not a scientist, I just listen to them. Ok, so there is no "consensus." But if you think we should base gov policy on the opinion of a "distinct minority" instead of the "vast majority" than you need to pull your head out of your ass.

1/22/2007 4:50:19 AM

Quote :

" Ok, so there is no "consensus." "

yeah its not like i said that on page 1

1/22/2007 11:35:38 AM

Quote :

"So it's kind of like saying someone murdered Ms. Mother Nature. There were only three people at scene when it happened. Dr. Solar System, Mr. Mankind, and Niño Junior. Well, since we can't prove who did it then they are all free to go. End of story. Great work there sherlock!"

That's exactly how it works. If you can't figure out who is guilty, what is your plan? Punish Mr. Mankind because Dr. Solar System has a PhD and Nino Jr. is a minor?

1/22/2007 5:17:59 PM

^Let alone claiming that someone murdered Ms. Mother Nature when she just as a fever

Talk about burying someone alive

1/22/2007 6:03:18 PM

^^So creating more efficient and diversified energy economy and slowing down the depletion of resources is punishing mankind?



Liberal media at it again

‘Smoking gun’ for human-caused warming

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/

[Edited on January 23, 2007 at 3:17 AM. Reason : ]

1/23/2007 3:04:43 AM

I think it's a scare tactic. I mean in the 70's people were terrified of Global cooling, and thought that the world would be covered in glaciers, and we would all starve to death. (Link to an article from Time mag:
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf and one to Newsweek: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm)

1/23/2007 2:27:27 PM

you're using our improved understanding of the science over the past 35 years to discredit current science. mhmm. that's sound.

and who exactly is doing the scaring? i mean it's not like scientists have some vested interest in scaring the population.

[Edited on January 23, 2007 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2007 2:31:27 PM

Quote :

"i mean it's not like scientists have some vested interest in scaring the population"

its not like oil companies have some vested interest in scaring the population

1/23/2007 2:38:31 PM

are you trying to imply that oil companies are behind the vast global warming scare conspiracy?

1/23/2007 2:43:43 PM

obviously not

but I am trying to question why terrorism is just a scare tactic and the only people who dismiss global warming as not absolutely true are oil company execs and stock holders...yet somehow the entire scientific/environmental community has absolutely zero agenda and 100% of what they do is for the good of the world!

1/23/2007 2:51:54 PM

agenda or not the "scientific community" is far more vast and open than any particular industry or company. are there scientists with agendas? sure. but their ideas won't carry any weight until a large chunk of scientists have scrutinized their work. sure you might not get that sort of scrutiny on dateline or a feature film, but if you don't realize that there is a give and take in science, then god help you.

1/23/2007 2:55:36 PM

Quote :

"its not like oil companies have some vested interest in scaring the population"

its not like oil companies have some vested interest in minimizing threats to their market

1/23/2007 3:06:39 PM

Astronomers claim that they can accurately predict the manifestations of the well known 11 year solar cycle ( http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1690_1.asp ). It is interesting to see the chart of solar activity over the past 126 years. The trend in solar activity is obvious. It can be interpreted that the world is warming, but humans are not causing it, and that it will go back. A cycle.
I think that the threat of global warming has been exaggerated by environmentalists in order to get research grants, promote agendas and raise money.

Not to mention that scientists have decided that there is global warming on Mars and Neptunes moon, Triton. And unless there are cows farting and humans driving big SUVs on other planets in our solar system, I still think global warming (caused by humans) is a crock.


[Edited on January 23, 2007 at 3:17 PM. Reason : (caused by humans)]

1/23/2007 3:08:36 PM

Quote :

"My MEA professors with PhD's in different oceanographic and atmospheric sciences poked holes in that theory in my undergrad classes before I graduated, dickwad"

Oh Jesus Christ. I have a degree in MEA from NC State, too. In your science education, you are taught to play devil's advocate. Global warming is a perfect subject to try to "poke holes" into because its easy to contort data and trends throughout time. You shouldn't believe in everything your NC State professors taught you.

[Edited on January 23, 2007 at 3:38 PM. Reason : nevermind]

1/23/2007 3:34:12 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention that scientists have decided that there is global warming on Mars and Neptunes moon, Triton."

Okay Neil Boortz, care to provide a link for this?

1/23/2007 3:39:18 PM

Don't listen to Boortz at all.

Mars:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

Triton:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml

Pluto
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

[Edited on January 23, 2007 at 3:51 PM. Reason : Spelled Boortz wrong]

1/23/2007 3:50:47 PM

Quote :

"You shouldn't believe in everything your NC State professors taught you."

Ok fair enough...but I should believe everything Al Gore tells me?

Let alone that statement I made was more of an effort to tell some of the people who think the theory that 'humans are causing global warming' is a 100% consensus in the scientific community with absolutely no unknown variables.

I mean ^stuff like that right there should tell you that American humans are not actually responsible for every ill in the universe

How are the most hardheaded of (terrestrial) anthropogenic global warming proponents going to explain warming on Mars, Pluto and one of Neptune's moons? I would really love to see some explanations since apparently solar cycles mean jack shit and anthro CO2 emissions are supposedly the main cause of our own planetary climate changes

Are you going to go back to your "there is a consensus in the scientific community" mentality as your "proof" that humans are causing these devastating changes?

You know my MEA professors at State werent perfect by any means...but they did teach me one thing (among others)...and thats to think like a scientist...which many of you seem completely incapable of doing

1/23/2007 4:21:14 PM