Chalk another up for \"global warming\"

[Duper]

if we've killed ourselves off, it hardly matters.

[woodchip]

Woodchip, are you trying to suggest that we should set more forests on fire?

How you extrapolated that is beyond me.

You did just come into a thread about how man is producing too much Carbon Dioxide and say that the excess of it is also caused by preventing forest fires, so...

Again one has to wonder at your reading comprehension skills:

1) I was comparing the 1970's (I know you were not born then) acid rain scare to the CO2/Global warming scare.

2) No where did I say anything about excess CO2 being caused by fire prevention. I did say it was found that the ash from forest fires reduced acidity levels in surrounding lakes.

Now I can see you are a bright 14 year old trying to debate issues on this board and that is commendable. However you have to learn to read a post and not skim it. When you do you will make a much better debater.

[Nightshade]

You might want to take a look at what Penn & Teller have to say about global warming- or rather the people behind global warming...well, they sure used a lot of dead trees, markers filled with toxic solvents and a whole lot of plastic water bottles in the process. Could you get any greener?

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... id=8917946

[Dakatsu]

For some reason, this graph seems to come up alot. I would like to point out that the graph is in thousands of years ago, so a small notch is a long period of time. It is true we are not entirely to blame for global climate change, but the fact that the temperature is in a sharp increase since the industrial age, accompanied by scientific data accepted by groups such as the AAAS, the NAS, the EGU, and the AMQUA, and this is a small list. I want someone not to just pull out a graph and say their opinion, as I doubt forumers based on a sci-fi game know everything about science; name a scientific group that rejects global warming that is a credible organization. Since scientists are the ones who investigate global warming, then find one who says it is bad science.

[Will Robinson]

Dakatsu, there probably isn't anyone, scientist or otherwise, that would say global warming doesn't exist. There are, however, many people including scientists who think the anthropogenic component of global warming is way over blown.

You can dump all the CO2 into the atmosphere you want and the increased warming will be nothing close to what some people want you to believe we're facing, you have to include all sorts of modeled predictions that contain worst case scenarios to get the results to forecast out to the catastrophic results we're being warned about.

If you have ever watched the weather channel when a hurricane is bearing down on the east coast you have seen many of those same scientists put there modeling skills to work providing the projected path of the oncoming storm....and once in a while they even get it right, most of the time they are way wrong....and that kind of modeling is much easier to perform!
Considering the political motives and track record of the loudest proponents of the warming scare and it isn't hard to see why reasonable people are becoming very skeptical of the doomsday predictions.
And yes those skeptics do include many scientists.

If the sincere and honest scientists want a more receptive audience they better get rid of the Al Gores and anti-capitalist U.N. crew in their midst!!

Here's some interesting reading from a skeptical scientist on the consensus done back in the early '90's. Also looking back on predictions made 10 or more years ago and comparing where we are to where they predicted we would be can be very interesting too.

Here's an excerpt from that skeptics article that I linked above, it details an encounter with Al Gore that is quite revealing about the hype machine:

Most recently, I testified at a Senate hearing conducted by Sen. Gore. There was a rather arcane discussion of the water vapor in the upper troposphere. Two years ago, I had pointed out that if the source of water vapor in that region in the tropics was from deep clouds, then surface warming would be accompanied by reduced upper level water vapor. Subsequent research has established that there must be an additional source--widely believed to be ice crystals thrown off by those deep clouds. I noted that that source too probably acts to produce less moisture in a warmer atmosphere. Both processes cause the major feedback process to become negative rather than positive. Sen. Gore asked whether I now rejected my suggestion of two years ago as a major factor. I answered that I did. Gore then called for the recording secretary to note that I had retracted my objections to \"global warming.'' In the ensuing argument, involving mostly other participants in the hearing, Gore was told that he was confusing matters. Shortly thereafter, however, Tom Wicker published an article in the New York Times that claimed that I had retracted my opposition to warming and that that warranted immediate action to curb the purported menace. I wrote a letter to the Times indicating that my position had been severely misrepresented, and, after a delay of over a month, my letter was published. Sen. Gore nonetheless claims in his book that I have indeed retracted my scientific objections to the catastrophic warming scenario and also warns others who doubt the scenario that they are hurting humanity.

[d3jake]

It's a major figurehead trying to force-feed the public his opinion, I hope nobody is surprised that something like this would happen.

[Foil]

Been following this thread for a while. Despite having been on the other side of the argument since my college days, I gotta say I'm with Pandora here, guys.

He posted the accepted data from multiple sources, and essentially said \"Hey, this is significant enough to be a big problem\". And, whatever your stance on the side issues, he's right.

Whether politicians are using it to their own advantage (as they are), whether or not it comparitively pales to very-long-term changes (as it does), and whether the Earth will eventually recover (as it probably will) is completely irrelevant.

Per the data, it's becoming a problem, fast. If you don't want to buy into all the 'green' business, fine. If you want to avoid the propaganda that has cropped up on both sides of this debate, fine. But don't ignore the data.

Whatever you believe about the cause, and whatever you believe about the long-term, this is a real issue, guys. The data is abundantly clear on that.

[Duper]

And foil, the other side is saying the data is slanted and motivated by personal agenda.

Personally, I think Will just said it best.

[Foil]

And foil, the other side is saying the data is slanted and motivated by personal agenda.

Meaning the data has been faked?

Duper, even the experts on your side of the argument accept the hard data as valid. It's the interpretation that's being argued.

[woodchip]

Foil, as the old saying goes, \"Statistics don't lie and liars use statistics\". What everyone here sees are graphs purporting this or that outcome. What we don't see is the data used to obtain the graph.

In short we can't know if the data was massaged to give the graph a desired outcome.

[Duper]

thank you Wood.

yeah. As I am currently doing research into this whole thing myself, I'm running into a lot of in fighting in the \"science commnuity\" .. (gawd what a misnomer that is) on this very topic.

No one has definitive data. It's mostly extrapolation for obscure examples and data sets. Much of the time, highly complex statical algorithms (only \"recently\" developed) are needed to create the graphs we are posting and reposting here.

What I'm saying is that genuine experts in these various fields can not produce definitive data the support either side. It's like trying a court case on circumstantial evidence and then saying you had an eye wittiness.

And sadly, the science community (like they are a bunch of \"in-laws\") the holy warriors the media has exalted them to be. Many .. like lawyers .. will stoop whatever means to \"prove their case\". .. for whatever their motivation may be.

\"Faked\"? in some cases yes. I'm quite sure in some cases. Much like the evolutionary models presented as \"proof positive\" and are STILL taught as such in schools. .. even though there were entire skeletal structures somehow extrapolated from half a jaw bone or a half of skull fragment.

But more the case as Woody said: \"massaged\". either intensionally or unintentionally.

[Foil]

So you're saying the graphs don't accurately represent the data? (If so, graph the data yourself. It's readily available, I've even seen it in MS Excel format.)

Or are you saying the data itself is faked/fudged/massaged?

[Edit: Duper posted as I was typing this one.]

[Foil]

No one has definitive data. It's mostly extrapolation for obscure examples and data sets.

Sure. Pandora already said that no one has any definitive data from before the advent of weather monitoring. But on the scale I'm referring to (say 1970 'til now), the data is there. From multiple sources. And the trend from those sources agrees.

[Here's the thing: when interpretation and speculation is rampant, you go back to the hard data. That's what I did, and that's why my perspective changed.]

Duper, if you believe the conspiracy theories about how the raw data is suspect, then you can't come to any conclusion at all. You can't say whether either side is right or wrong, because you have no basis for any opinion at all.

[Duper]

No one has definitive data. It's mostly extrapolation for obscure examples and data sets.

Sure. Pandora already said that no one has any definitive data from before the advent of weather monitoring. But on the scale I'm referring to (say 1970 'til now), the data is there. From multiple sources. And the trend from those sources agrees.

[Here's the thing: when interpretation and speculation is rampant, you go back to the hard data. That's what I did, and that's why my perspective changed.]

Duper, if you believe the conspiracy theories about how the raw data is suspect, then you can't come to any conclusion at all. You can't say whether either side is right or wrong, because you have no basis for any opinion at all.

Conspiracy? Foil. This is stuff I've read my self from the scientists that have gathered the data. The sources are "accepted" but like so many things in out doors is effected by one or more variable that makes its use questionable.
You should hit their blogs foil. These "respectable scientists" trade insults like an old married couple. It's not just the sources its how the info interpreted. No science is exact. you should KNOW that. Particularly where natural science is concerned. Data and reasons why the data appears the way it does can be guessed at from any number of angles .. and Is.

And for the record. We landed on the moon.

On a much calmer side note. I'm continuing to look into this stuff. I do not claim to have perfect knowledge.. (duh) but what i AM saying is that I don't like what I've seen thus far... from either "side". It's certainly not encouraging and it's not as "pristine" as the general media portrays it.