DescentBB

Dissent, you realize that the first link actually concludes that the uncertainties in the climate change models actually lead to an underestimation of global warming in the next years? That is, the warming might actually be even stronger then suggested by the recent models?

From your first link:

Although we don't yet fully understand the global carbon cycle, it's safe to say there are no magic bullets in the carbon sinks to rescue the world from high atmospheric CO2 levels any time in the next few centuries. Quite to the contrary, most of the feedbacks between the global carbon cycle and global warming seem to be positive--that is, global warming reduces the sink strengths. Furthermore, the land carbon sink, if it is due primarily to land-use changes, will likely saturate much earlier than if it were due largely to fertilization. Thus, the emission reduction and sequestration measures required to stabilize future atmospheric CO2 at levels that will minimize impacts are likely to be more stringent than estimated with models that did not include carbon climate feedbacks and that did include fertilization as the main mechanism for the terrestrial carbon sink.

Second point for the climate models

Now to your third link, Dissent.

First thing to note is that the headline is misleading. It says \"mystery mechanism might counteract global warming\", but the only things the article talks about is that the climate recovers from a volcanoe eruption (which leads to cooling) faster than \"some\" climate models predict (the \"some\" will become important later on).

Second, at least one of the main authors of the studies (Douglass) has already tried to challenge global warming observations on the basis of selective data collection. This does not really make me feel confident about this study of his.

Third, although it was not possible to download the article, it was possible to download a (peer-reviewed) comment (.pdf) on the article. Turns out that Douglass' conclusion only holds for over-simplified models that ignore temperature exchange with the ocean (Remember the \"some climate models\" above?). Modern models of course include such exchanges. There are two newer studies (referenced in the comment) showing that the time to equillibrium after the eruption indeed follows the predictions of modern climate models.

From the comment:

Douglass and Knox present a confusing and erroneous description of climate feedbacks and the climate response to the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Their conclusions of a negative climate feedback and small climate sensitivity to volcanic forcing are not supported by their arguments or the observational evidence. As pointed out by Wigley et al. [2005a], this is the consequence of assuming a one-box representation for the climate system, and ignoring energy exchange with the deep ocean.

Third point for the climate models

(edited for clarity)

Pandora,

Thanks for the update on the Spencer data. (What? You mean if I found it on the internet it might not be true?? )

Also for the information related to the Douglass article. Although I have to admit that I have a rough time at putting articles from Geophysical Research Letters into a context that I can put my arms around. I admit that I am not an atmospheric scientist. I miss having something akin to a Talk Origins site for a topic like global climate change, where information is distilled down to a little more digestable form more suited to my level of comprehension. I've found your links at realclimate to be interesting, but I'm still having context issues.

I'm not sure I draw exactly the same conclusion from the section you quote from the Physics today article. I certainly agree that the feedbacks in some of the climate change models might lead to higher global warming in the future, since \"most of the feedbacks between the global carbon cycle and global warming seem to be positive\". However, Sarmiento and Gruber draw out numerous areas where models are in disagreement because of the vast complexity of the several systems involved. I agree with them that further study should help to alleviate these deficiencies, and i hope these folks get the money they need to do good science.

Which leads me to second Will's point about the dearth of good reporting by the media in this area. With a subject as convoluted as this, we need a few good science reporters to help us poor civilians try to make sense of all this information. But all they seem to want to do is wax hyberbolic about the controversies, or supposed controversies. They might as well be throwing gasoline into the fire, for all the good they are doing.

dissent wrote:I admit that I am not an atmospheric scientist. I miss having something akin to a Talk Origins site for a topic like global climate change, where information is distilled down to a little more digestable form more suited to my level of comprehension. I've found your links at realclimate to be interesting, but I'm still having context issues.

Same here. I agree that talkorigins is superior with regard to explaining the science in laymans terms. I have been reading realclimate.org for half a year and only now do I seem to get a hang of things. However, I haven't found a site that is accessible and at the same time as accurate and un-polemic as realclimate.

I certainly agree that the feedbacks in some of the climate change models might lead to higher global warming in the future, since "most of the feedbacks between the global carbon cycle and global warming seem to be positive". However, Sarmiento and Gruber draw out numerous areas where models are in disagreement because of the vast complexity of the several systems involved. I agree with them that further study should help to alleviate these deficiencies, and i hope these folks get the money they need to do good science.

You're certainly right. But note that the models have done a really exceptional job with accounting for and predicting climate changes (as for example demonstrated by your links 1 and 3). So the uncertainties can't be too large. Also, the word 'seem' is kind of a mannerism in science. It often just signals professional modesty ("Although I am 100% sure of my interpretation I accept that science might prove me wrong in the years to come.") or that the researcher can't be bothered to make a stronger point because he is too lazy to dig up the appropriate references.

Which leads me to second Will's point about the dearth of good reporting by the media in this area. With a subject as convoluted as this, we need a few good science reporters to help us poor civilians try to make sense of all this information. But all they seem to want to do is wax hyberbolic about the controversies, or supposed controversies. They might as well be throwing gasoline into the fire, for all the good they are doing.

I agree completely with you and Will here. From what I can tell from the reporting on global warming and on my own field, science reporting is utter crap. The whole idea of 'balanced reporting' just has to go. I don't believe that the "I don't buy it"-responses to global warming would be as widespread as they are now when the media had accurately reported all the instances the climate models were right and the climate change sceptics were wrong. At the moment they make it seem as if there were as much evidence against global warming as there is for it. It is a chilling thought that the same distortions might also occur in the reporting on politics where the situation is at least as complex for a layman to understand.

Will Robinson wrote:You have surrendered the media to be a part of the problem, you accept it to be partisan in the debate instead of being a fact checker and watchdog on the players.
It's not unusual unfortunately, we all have done it but it will be our undoing if we don't wake up and demand objectivity in journalism. The free press is our only weapon to fight the inevitable corrupt and/or incompitent political machine.

You caught me there, Will. I realize that I have indeed released the press from their responsibility as an objective fact checker after becoming aware of the totally distored reporting some years ago. It would of course have been a better response to demand more objectivity from them instead of simply ignoring them.

It seems that according to this article, what we do will have little impact on what is a natural process.

http://www.physorg.com/news70621539.html

Do explain how you came to that conclusion from the article.

VonVulcan wrote:It seems that according to this article, what we do will have little impact on what is a natural process.

http://www.physorg.com/news70621539.html

funny you should draw that conclusion since the article says:

Lonnie Thompson, professor of geological sciences at Ohio State wrote:What this is really telling us is that our climate system is sensitive, it can change abruptly due to either natural or to human forces

...what your post is telling me is that you believe what you want to believe, facts be damned.

I'm not saying the warming trend is caused entirely by man. I have never said that.

Let me tell you something that is NOT controversial: green house gasses cause warming. Here is something else that is not contested by anyone: humans pump out tons and tons of green house gasses every day.

And your message, Vulcan, is that humans could not possibly have anything to do with warming?

If anything, the article is strongly in support of taking great caution in how we treat the environment. the point of the article is actually not at all what vulcan says. it is that the environment is extremely sensitive and even a slight impact can result in drastic climate change, regardless of the cause of the impact.

My, don't we indeed excell in being rude here at the DBB...

Did you read the entire article, the part below the pink dotted line? Talking about the amount of methane.
My apoloagies in advance if I seem rude.

edit: Excerpt from the article in case you missed it.
----------------------------------------------------
First discovered in 2002, the researchers have since identified 28 separate sites near the margin of the ice cap where these ancient plants have been exposed. Carbon-dating revealed that the plants range in age from 5,000 to 6,500 years old.

“This means that the climate at the ice cap hasn’t been warmer than it is today in the last 5,000 years or more,” Thompson said. “If it had been, then the plants would have decayed.”

The researchers say a major climate shift around 5,000 years ago in the tropics had to have cooled the region since the ice cap quickly expanded and covered the plants. The fact that they are now being exposed indicates that the opposite has occurred – the region has warmed dramatically, causing the ice cap to quickly melt.
-------------------------------------

This suggests to me that 5000 to 6500 years ago the climate was warm enough near the polar regions for tropical plants to grow, Modern man was not around to cause that warming I do believe. I think that suggests a natural climactic cycle. Perhaps brought on a bit earlier then if humans were not here but nothing that can be avoided.You may have a different point of view, or interpit the article differently then I did assuming you read it in it's entiraty. Thats ok, just no need to be rude.

Vulcan, that's an interesting interpretation of the article. Have you seen Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth?

No I have not, which leads me to this...

“Scientific Proof : The Concept of Scientific Proof or Provability : a participating majority agrees that the propositions they select as being true, constitute fundamentals which are truths. Then, that assembly declares those unproven self-selected truths to be basic commonly accepted principles : original start points, from which valid premises will issue; in turn, generating environments from which correct theorems may be systematically deduced and laid down to explain nearly anything.

As we know, accepting or otherwise promoting arbitrary, imprecise, opinion driven systems by agreeing that such claims can somehow rise to demonstrate Proofs, lay down methodologies to determine proofs, generate valid systems of Provability, or lead to the formation of Scientific Proofs is self-delusional bunk.

Giving merit to such game theory agreements, however simple or complex their mechanical formulation maybe, and then naming that Science, or Proof by Science, is totally absurd.

…however, we know that it is precisely such forms of self-serving, consensus driven, collectivist methodology, born in the arbitrary consensus of a band of self-anointed self-profiting attendees, which we then use to manage our lives and shape the world around us every day.” Alford

Huh? I recommend you see the movie. It's good.

VonVulcan wrote:This suggests to me that 5000 to 6500 years ago the climate was warm enough near the polar regions for tropical plants to grow, Modern man was not around to cause that warming I do believe. I think that suggests a natural climactic cycle. Perhaps brought on a bit earlier then if humans were not here but nothing that can be avoided.You may have a different point of view, or interpit the article differently then I did assuming you read it in it's entiraty. Thats ok, just no need to be rude.

All that means is that humans may not be solely responsible for this global warming. But that doesn't mean human activity can be mostly responsible for it.

Actually, all it means is that at one time in the past it was warmer and then some plants froze and the ice covering these plants is melting because it's getting warmer.

So basically, all it says is that it's getting warmer...

It's a fallacy to say that just because it used to be warmer in the past that we're in some kind of natural cycle or even to suggest that just because it used to be warmer means that humans aren't causing 100% of what we're experiencing now.

I'm not saying that humans are causing 100% of what we're experiencing now. I'm just saying that these plants have nothing to do with whether humans are causing anything.

I do, however, think it's nifty that there are plants frozen under the ice. =)

VonVulcan wrote:No I have not, which leads me to this...

“Scientific Proof : The Concept of Scientific Proof or Provability..."

Huh? Well, I don't see a straightforward connection, and I'm not really sure what you (or "Alford") is getting at here. But you and/or "Alford" seem to be correctly hinting at one thing. All the scientific method is useful for is for falsifying hypotheses and suspending the falsification of hypotheses. It cannot conclude anything to be true.

So how do we arrive at scientific truth? Well, we can't if you're going to be nit-picky. Is this a good excuse to become the ultimate skeptic? Maybe if you're looking for one, but even skeptics eat and fly on a plane to Venice. So for practicality's sake, most people will just accept hypotheses that have withstood much scientific scrutiny as truth. I think you'll find the various facts concerning global warming already outlined in this thread to have successfully survived scientific scritiny. If this isn't satisfactory to you, for consistency's sake, act very surprised when apples fall down from trees and your shoes and/or feet produce friction against the ground and allow you to walk.

Jeff250 wrote:If this isn't satisfactory to you, for consistency's sake, act very surprised when apples fall down from trees and your shoes and/or feet produce friction against the ground and allow you to walk.

lol.

Hey, well some people still say we didn't land on the moon. =)

So Jeff, you think I am being nit-picky when what I posted, if true, undermines the entire scientific comunity?

\"So for practicality's sake, most people will just accept hypotheses that have withstood much scientific scrutiny as truth. I think you'll find the various facts concerning global warming already outlined in this thread to have successfully survived scientific scritiny.\"

Said scientific scrutiny is invalid if what I posted about Scientific truth is correct.

*LOL* It sounds to me you believe it to be true but are saying Oh well, No problem, just go along. My whole point (My opinion) is the left wing commies are using this kind of science to to undermine our culture and reduce us to third world status. The above article suggest to me that there is indeed a climatic cycle. It also suggests to me that even if every human activity that may contribute to global warming were to cease, the cycle would continue. AS I conceded, humans may be responsible for speeding it up a fraction, which to us looks huge but on the historic prospective, is merely a hickup. The article talks about a truly HUGE (Gigatons?) amount of methane (2X more powerful in creating the greenhouse effect then Co2?) frozen in tundra which IS melting and HAS melted before. There is physical evidence, not hypothetical evidence, of plants under the ice near the poles. It appears to me that these facts are being ignored by posters to this topic. It is not popular to disagree with the global warming, Humans can control it crowed. If my post seems a bit disjointed, my apolagies, I am not a very good writer.

Do you have any idea how brainwashed you sound, Vulcan? The science says that humans are causing it and the article you linked does not suggest otherwise.

At this point, claiming that humanity is not the cause of global warming is just an excuse to be lazy.

By acknowledging that there's a problem, by acknowledging that we're the cause, and by acknowledging that it might not be too late to fix things, we can allow ourselves get off our fat lazy asses and make a difference.

As Al Gore put it, we've solved global environmental problems before. Remember the ozone hole crisis? Humanity caused it and humanity solved it. By turning a blind eye to our problems, we're depriving ourselves of solutions.

Suncho, you did not address my points.

Ok, how's this.

Vulcan's first point:

1. It was hotter before.
2. It got colder.
3. It's getting hotter again.
-----------
4. Therefore we're in a natural cycle

I can make a similar argument

1. Girl is born
2. Girl that was born has daughter
3. That daughter has a daughter
-----------
4. Therefore it's natural.

What I failed to mention was that the the daughter had her daughter when she was 3 months old. Is that a natural cycle? I don't think so. Something is messed up.

Did you have another point? I don't understand your statement about the scientific method and how it relates at all to the conversation at hand. Care to explain what you're talking about?

VonVulcan wrote:So Jeff, you think I am being nit-picky when what I posted, if true, undermines the entire scientific comunity?

I'd say "yes he is, so what" to this, except for that it wouldn't "undermine the entire scientific comunity".

VonVulcan wrote:Said scientific scrutiny is invalid if what I posted about Scientific truth is correct.

Read Jeff's second paragraph.

VonVulcan wrote:My whole point (My opinion) is the left wing commies are using this kind of science to to undermine our culture and reduce us to third world status.

Did you just say that you think your country would have a third world status because people are being conservative about using energy?

VonVulcan wrote:The above article suggest to me that there is indeed a climatic cycle.

You go find me plants fossilised in ice from 12,000 years ago, and I'll start to believe that there's a cycle.

VonVulcan wrote:AS I conceded, humans may be responsible for speeding it up a fraction, which to us looks huge but on the historic prospective, is merely a hickup.

You come back to us when you find out how big/small of a fraction.

VonVulcan wrote:There is physical evidence, not hypothetical evidence, of plants under the ice near the poles. It appears to me that these facts are being ignored by posters to this topic.

No, I think we are all aware that there was an ice age on this planet at one point in time. The thing is, you're only linking it to your theory that the world will undergo another ice age in the future; and I think we all believe that.

Suncho wrote:Ok, how's this.

Vulcan's first point:

1. It was hotter before.
2. It got colder.
3. It's getting hotter again.
-----------
4. Therefore we're in a natural cycle

I can make a similar argument

1. Girl is born
2. Girl that was born has daughter
3. That daughter has a daughter
-----------
4. Therefore it's natural.

What I failed to mention was that the the daughter had her daughter when she was 3 months old. Is that a natural cycle? I don't think so. Something is messed up.

Did you have another point? I don't understand your statement about the scientific method and how it relates at all to the conversation at hand. Care to explain what you're talking about?

Not even close, all you did was creat your own points and try to over-simplify mine.

As far as the Scientific proof statement.
Re read the post carefully. It is entirely self explanitory. It stands on it's own. You either agree with it or you don't. In my view, you are the brainwashed one if you can't see it. But thats OK, none of us here are going to save the planet anyway.
Or destroy it for that matter.

VonVulcan wrote: Not even close, all you did was creat your own points and try to over-simplify mine.

Ok. I'll break it down in more detail for you.

Here we go:

VonVulcan wrote: It seems that according to this article, what we do will have little impact on what is a natural process.

Really? I read the whole article. Which part says that?

VonVulcan Quoting Article wrote: First discovered in 2002, the researchers have since identified 28 separate sites near the margin of the ice cap where these ancient plants have been exposed. Carbon-dating revealed that the plants range in age from 5,000 to 6,500 years old.

Interesting, sir. So the ice is melting and uncovering ancient plants that used to live where these ice caps now are. Please do go on.

VonVulcan Quoting Article wrote:“This means that the climate at the ice cap hasn’t been warmer than it is today in the last 5,000 years or more,” Thompson said. “If it had been, then the plants would have decayed.”

Ah. So the last time it was this warm was around 5,000 years ago? Fascinating. Tell me more!

VonVulcan Quoting Article wrote:The researchers say a major climate shift around 5,000 years ago in the tropics had to have cooled the region since the ice cap quickly expanded and covered the plants. The fact that they are now being exposed indicates that the opposite has occurred – the region has warmed dramatically, causing the ice cap to quickly melt.

So, if I'm reading this right, the region cooled dramatically 5,000 years ago, and now it's warming dramatically! I'm intrigued. What, pray tell, are you getting at?

VonVulcan wrote:This suggests to me that 5000 to 6500 years ago the climate was warm enough near the polar regions for tropical plants to grow

It suggests to you that tropical plants were growing near the polar regions? Are you sure? That's weird because it clearly says that these plants were growing in the *TROPICAL* regions.

VonVulcan wrote:Modern man was not around to cause that warming I do believe.

Ok. Now you're losing me. I read the entire article and it only mentions one warming: the warming that's happening now. Undoubtedly, there have been warmings in the past, but this article does not reference any of them. What's this "other" warming you speak of?

VonVulcan wrote: I think that suggests a natural climactic cycle.

Have you ever been talking to someone and seen that person's eyes just glaze over in a lack of understanding. That's what my face looks like now.

VonVulcan wrote:Perhaps brought on a bit earlier then if humans were not here but nothing that can be avoided.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not a sentence.

VonVulcan wrote:You may have a different point of view, or interpit the article differently then I did assuming you read it in it's entiraty. Thats ok, just no need to be rude.

... What's rude is to ignore the facts by pretending there's some debate on an issue that's already been decided. What's rude is to pretend that this article says something about natural cycles when it does not. What's rude is to claim that that the ice cores came from the poles when, in fact, they came from high-altitude tropical ice caps.

Did you even read the article or did you skim it and make up your own story?

VonVulcan wrote:As far as the Scientific proof statement.
Re read the post carefully. It is entirely self explanitory. It stands on it's own.

Ok. I'll reread it carefully in just a moment.

VonVulcan wrote:You either agree with it or you don't.

True, but whether or not I agree with it has nothing to do with whether or not it's even relevent to the topic at hand in the first place.

VonVulcan wrote:In my view, you are the brainwashed one if you can't see it.

Ok, ok! I'll look at it again.

VonVulcan wrote:But thats OK, none of us here are going to save the planet anyway.
Or destroy it for that matter.

Got anything to back that statement up?

VonVulcan wrote:Scientific Proof : The Concept of Scientific Proof or Provability : a participating majority agrees that the propositions they select as being true, constitute fundamentals which are truths. Then, that assembly declares those unproven self-selected truths to be basic commonly accepted principles : original start points, from which valid premises will issue; in turn, generating environments from which correct theorems may be systematically deduced and laid down to explain nearly anything.

Yes. By this definition, mankind's affect on global warming has been scientifically proven.

VonVulcan wrote:As we know, accepting or otherwise promoting arbitrary, imprecise, opinion driven systems by agreeing that such claims can somehow rise to demonstrate Proofs, lay down methodologies to determine proofs, generate valid systems of Provability, or lead to the formation of Scientific Proofs is self-delusional bunk.

I recommend you read up on the facts of global warming. I recommend you see An Inconvenient Truth. Right now, your claims seem to be awfully imprecise, opinion driven, and arbitrary.

VonVulcan wrote:Giving merit to such game theory agreements, however simple or complex their mechanical formulation maybe, and then naming that Science, or Proof by Science, is totally absurd.

This quote is calling your argument "totally absurd." You might wanna listen to Alford.

VonVulcan wrote:however, we know that it is precisely such forms of self-serving, consensus driven, collectivist methodology, born in the arbitrary consensus of a band of self-anointed self-profiting attendees, which we then use to manage our lives and shape the world around us every day

I think you should feel at least a little bit embarrassed that you've bought into the self-serving collectivist methodology of self-profiting oil companies and car manufacturers.

I didn't want to be rude, which is why I stayed brief. Oh well. It was worth a shot.

Either way, I was very impressed with the film. If you see it and would like to discuss it, I'd be happy to. =)

An important point for both sides of this debate to remember. Once a scientific issue becomes political, you must assume that biased propaganda is pouring out from both sides of the issue.

You can't trust Greenpeace's research, they are biased, they have an agenda. They might be right, mind you, but you can't TRUST them.

ALSO

You can't trust the research coming out from the other side. They are biased, they have an agenda. They might be right, mind you, but you can't TRUST them.

Whenever EITHER side of the climate debate says that they have \"science\" on their side, just change the word to \"Propaganda\" and you'll have it about right.

The best I can tell from reading the evidence on both sides is that the truth is PROBABLY inbetween both extremes. But it's hard to judge when you aren't an expert in the field and can't trust either sides research.

Actually Kilarin, while that may be true in some cases and while there may be some environmental extremists making wild claims about global warming and eco-terrorists who believe panda bears are more important than humans, in terms of the global warming debate, there is no debate among scientists.

A debate has been manufactured in the popular media by those who do not want to deal with the global warming problem. In the scientific community, the jury came back a long time ago. Global warming is here, humans are causing it, and it's already having serious consequences.

The only unknown is what happens now and how bad it's going to be. The reason it's unknown isn't because the science is foggy. It's because the scientists have no way of predicting what humanity will do, if anything, to fight it. That's the variable.

If you want to read up on it, a good place to start is Wikipedia:

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

If you want to call it a debate, only one \"side\" has real scientists on it. But really we should all be on the same side. It's all of our livelihood at stake here... not just that of one political faction.

Suncho wrote:

VonVulcan wrote: Not even close, all you did was creat your own points and try to over-simplify mine.

Ok. I'll break it down in more detail for you.

Here we go:

VonVulcan wrote: It seems that according to this article, what we do will have little impact on what is a natural process.

Really? I read the whole article. Which part says that?

Suncho my boy, when I read any article, I interpit what is written and form my own opinion. You see. this is what I am talking about, like many people on this board, you can't resist an opertunity to appear clever and belittle people who post an opinion that you may not agree with.

Ok. That's enough.

This is not a poem. The article is not meant to be interpreted. The article is meant to be read and understood. It should only mean one thing. If we disagree about what it means then either one of us is wrong or the article is poorly written.

Suncho wrote:Ok. That's enough.

This is not a poem. The article is not meant to be interpreted. The article is meant to be read and understood. It should only mean one thing. If we disagree about what it means then either one of us is wrong or the article is poorly written.

Suncho, you can't be serious. Don't they teach critical thinking anymore? BTW, did you read the earlier link posted by Herculosis?

VonVulcan wrote:You see. this is what I am talking about, like many people on this board, you can't resist an opertunity to appear clever and belittle people who post an opinion that you may not agree with.

Umm...
You do realise that you're doing the exact same thing as what you're complaining about in this quote?

I'll try and explain this to you, the most pertinant parts... my interpitation

“Scientific Proof : The Concept of Scientific Proof or Provability : a participating majority

[in this case, enviro-commies, Al Gore ect.]

agrees that the propositions they select as being true, constitute fundamentals which are truths.

[based on thier agenda]

Then, that assembly

[The enviro-commies, Al Gore ect.]

declares those unproven self-selected truths to be basic commonly accepted principles : original start points, from which valid premises will issue;

[valid by thier definitions]

in turn, generating environments from which correct theorems may be systematically deduced and laid down to explain nearly anything.

[if it fits thier agenda]

As we know, accepting or otherwise promoting arbitrary, imprecise, opinion driven systems by agreeing that such claims can somehow rise to demonstrate Proofs, lay down methodologies to determine proofs, generate valid systems of Provability, or lead to the formation of Scientific Proofs is self-delusional bunk.

[no explanation needed here]

Giving merit to such game theory agreements, however simple or complex their mechanical formulation maybe, and then naming that Science, or Proof by Science, is totally absurd.

[again, pretty clear to me.]

…however, we know that it is precisely such forms of self-serving, consensus driven, collectivist methodology, born in the arbitrary consensus of a band of self-anointed self-profiting attendees, which we then use to manage our lives and shape the world around us every day.” Alford

[in this case, control the people]

Now you may not agree that this is true, thats ok but if you disagree, I'm not going to try and make you look small because of our disagreement.

Hopefully you will do some critical thinking and form your own opinion. Thats really all I am trying to generate here.

TIGERassault wrote:

VonVulcan wrote:You see. this is what I am talking about, like many people on this board, you can't resist an opertunity to appear clever and belittle people who post an opinion that you may not agree with.

Umm...
You do realise that you're doing the exact same thing as what you're complaining about in this quote?

Really? how so? Where am I belittling anyone? I thought my posts were respectfull of others. Maybe the part where I said "Suncho my boy"? Thats possibly disrespectful and I apologise. I guess I was a little imature there. I would hardly consider any of my posts clever.

I guess my next question is this: How can you criticize Al Gore's position when you haven't even seen what he has to say?

VonVulcan wrote:Really? how so? Where am I belittling anyone?

"Hopefully you will do some critical thinking and form your own opinion."

VonVulcan wrote:I would hardly consider any of my posts clever.

Then why do you expect us to read them when you admit that they aren't thought out?

VonVulcan wrote:BTW, did you read the earlier link posted by Herculosis?

Yes. Did you read the response posted by Pandora?

Suncho wrote:

VonVulcan wrote:BTW, did you read the earlier link posted by Herculosis?

Yes. Did you read the response posted by Pandora?

Yes I did, see "scientific proof"

TIGERassault wrote:

VonVulcan wrote:Really? how so? Where am I belittling anyone?

"Hopefully you will do some critical thinking and form your own opinion."

VonVulcan wrote:I would hardly consider any of my posts clever.

Then why do you expect us to read them when you admit that they aren't thought out?

The first statment refers to a thought process, not intended as disrespectful, did you feel I was belittling you Suncho? If so, I'm sorry.

Tiger, if you don't think my post are clever enough for you, be my guest and don't read them then.

EDIT: BTW, when did I "admit" my posts are not well thought out? I admited to being a lousy writer. I have difficulty finding the words to express my thoughts.

Nah. It's fine. Also, I understand that not everyone has time to sit down and become experts on this stuff. I certainly don't. But I think Al Gore breaks it down in an intuitive and entertaining way for lay people like us and I recommend you see it. Even if you disagree with what he says or find some of the statements off base (I don't think you will), it's still a fun movie and I've been hoping to discuss it for a while now.

Suncho wrote:in terms of the global warming debate, there is no debate among scientists.

I've heard scientists on BOTH sides of the debate.
Yes, there is good evidence that our climate is changing. There also seems to be reasonable evidence that human polution is, at least in some part, responsible for the change. However, I don't feel like the evidence is strong enough yet to indicate how much of the change we are responsible for and how much is natural cycles.

The PRUDENT response to me seems to be a drastic reduction in green house gas emmisions. But then, prudent is not something we have commonly done when economics are on the line.

Take, for example, leaded gasoline. We had rock solid evidence that leaded gasoline emmisions were causing retardation in city children. So we decided to "Phase it out".

Please note, the government was told, as long as people are burning leaded gasoline, X number of children per year will become mentaly retarded. We could ban the stuff immediatly and force everyone to switch, but the economic impact would be pretty high. OR, we could phase it out over 25 years and just put up with a bunch of retarted children being born during that period. They, of course, chose option B.

I admit, It was much better than option C, leave it as is, but to the parents of any children who suffered brain damage during the phase out, they have got to be questioning whether the economic advantages of a "phase out" were really worth it.

So no, I do NOT trust Greenpeace, or even Scientific American, they have an agenda and thier science is biased. BUT, so is the "science" being spouted by the oil companies and the republican party.

Better to err on the side of caution here.

Kilarin, I think you are mistaken.

p.s. I don't think people are suggesting we ban gasoline.