Take THAT Al!

[Okla-homey]

Brilliant! Particularly coming from a scientist who hails from the nation that first settled Greenland, which was once warm enough on which to farm...hence its name. Over the succeeding thousand years, it got all icey and stuff as it still is today. Natural cycles people, NATURAL cycles.


Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.

It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.

The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

[Ike]

The funny thing is, the headline is completely dishonest to the content of the article. Nowhere does he say that the Earth is not going through changes to its climate that may or may not be caused in whole or in part by the activities of mankind. He is simply saying "It's complicated"

[sooneron]

Why are people so excited to think that global warming/etc. is a falsehood? Is it b/c they feel they are sticking it to Al Gore? Are they against any conservation at all? I don't get it. We've had a ****ty effect on this planet since someone figured out we can burn stuff from the ground to accomplish something. I think it's really petty and myopic to get all giddy about nanny nanny!! Bruce can still drive his Tahoe or whatever to the Quick Trip for some smokes and a 44 oz coke. It's sad really that people just don't seem to give a ****. "Oh, I'll turn off lights and such to save electricity, cuz it saves ME money." So much for the conserve part of conservatism.

I don't get it. This crap isn't going to last forever. And more and more kids are being diagnosed with asthma and other diseases related to air quality.

[Okla-homey]

Why are people so excited to think that global warming/etc. is a falsehood? Is it b/c they feel they are sticking it to Al Gore? Are they against any conservation at all? I don't get it. We've had a ****ty effect on this planet since someone figured out we can burn stuff from the ground to accomplish something. I think it's really petty and myopic to get all giddy about nanny nanny!! Bruce can still drive his Tahoe or whatever to the Quick Trip for some smokes and a 44 oz coke. It's sad really that people just don't seem to give a ****. "Oh, I'll turn off lights and such to save electricity, cuz it saves ME money." So much for the conserve part of conservatism.

I don't get it. This crap isn't going to last forever. And more and more kids are being diagnosed with asthma and other diseases related to air quality.

I just generally abhor hyperbole. I think a lot of people are "on board" with the notion that burning carbon-based fuels is undoubtedly going to lead to some sort of catastrophic change in our climate, mostly because popular culture has "decided" that is scientific truth.

That is not to say we should not try to conserve resources and pollute our environment less. I'm down with that.

I just think it's usually lamentable when the "herd," influenced by popular culture/media/rockstars/whomever, accept scientific propositions as fact without doing any thinking or research themselves. When I was a young Jedi, my masters always taught me to always think critically. I wish everyone would.

[Xstnlsooner]

"Hook, line, and sinker..."

[IB4OU2]

I wish Al Gore could control all those nasty volcanos that spew more gas and pollutants during one single eruption than mankind has in a millinium.
Nasty volcanos.......

[landrun]

Why are people so excited to think that global warming/etc. is a falsehood? Is it b/c they feel they are sticking it to Al Gore? Are they against any conservation at all? I don't get it. We've had a ****ty effect on this planet since someone figured out we can burn stuff from the ground to accomplish something. I think it's really petty and myopic to get all giddy about nanny nanny!! Bruce can still drive his Tahoe or whatever to the Quick Trip for some smokes and a 44 oz coke. It's sad really that people just don't seem to give a ****. "Oh, I'll turn off lights and such to save electricity, cuz it saves ME money." So much for the conserve part of conservatism.

I don't get it. This crap isn't going to last forever. And more and more kids are being diagnosed with asthma and other diseases related to air quality.

That's one of the problems when discussing global warming. Because Al Gore has championed this idea, it quickly becomes personal in regards to Al.

The fact of the matter is that scientists all over the world reject the idea of man-caused global warming. Global warming isn't a scientific issue. It is a Political Issue. We have politicians lying about what scientist think and say in order to promote a political agenda.

Its not that conservatives don't care. Its not like we're not concerned about 'this crap lasting forever' as you put it. But the reality is that scientist without political agendas reject the PC idea that evil men are to blame for a natural upswing in temperature on Earth, and in fact, our entire solar system (which conveniently is ignored by politicians wanting to layout political agendas because of the global warming 'crisis')

In short, why spend billions of dollars trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist just because it makes a politician popular (and wealthy in Gore's case) and provides many people with a nice living off of the global warming scam.

We delight in the truth. Not making Gore look bad. We do NOT have the economic recourses to force people to conform to ridiculous governmental standards in their attempt to solve problems that science says doesn't even exist.

My questions to you is why does the left blatantly lie about global warming? Why do they tell you 'the debate is over' suggesting that there is scientific consensus of indisputable proof man has caused global warming when they know it isn't true. A POLITICIAN made a movie about global warming that was filled with intentional lies. They willfully told you and every other American that sciences collectively agrees that global warming is man made. Gore knew when he made the movie (and now) that such remarks are deliberate lies. Why? What's the agenda. Why would they want to spend billions solving problems that don't exist when we could give it to the poor, use the $$ to save social security etc...?

[Widescreen]

Bruce can still drive his Tahoe or whatever to the Quick Trip for some smokes and a 44 oz coke.
You are officially on Bruce's list. Run for your life!

[OULOVE]

Hoorah! Pollution wins again air suckers! In your face.

[Ike]

That's one of the problems when discussing global warming. Because Al Gore has championed this idea, it quickly becomes personal in regards to Al.

The fact of the matter is that scientists all over the world reject the idea of man-caused global warming. Global warming isn't a scientific issue. It is a Political Issue. We have politicians lying about what scientist think and say in order to promote a political agenda. let's be honest, there are some scientists, and it's really not a whole lot of them, who reject the notion of man-made global warming. It has become political true, but let's not try and reverse the fact that most climatologists are pretty convinced that we did it

Its not that conservatives don't care. Its not like we're not concerned about 'this crap lasting forever' as you put it. But the reality is that scientist without political agendas reject the PC idea that evil men are to blame for a natural upswing in temperature on Earth, and in fact, our entire solar system (which conveniently is ignored by politicians wanting to layout political agendas because of the global warming 'crisis') Easy there. Trying to paint the GW skeptics as the only unbiased observers is just as dishonest as trying to say that the GW supporting scientists are the only unbiased observers of the climate...oh, and the upswing in the solar system that we claim to observe can easily be due to the difficulty of measuring the temps of planets...and the cycles that predict extraterrestrial GW (solar cycles) are far to rapid to be consistent with historical data....In other words, that effect is probably small compared to what is going on on earth.

In short, why spend billions of dollars trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist just because it makes a politician popular (and wealthy in Gore's case) and provides many people with a nice living off of the global warming scam.


We delight in the truth. Not making Gore look bad. We do NOT have the economic recourses to force people to conform to ridiculous governmental standards in their attempt to solve problems that science says doesn't even exist.but the thing is, everyone in this debate has already made up their mind at what the "truth" of this matter is. Very few people are concerned with actually finding the truth.

My questions to you is why does the left blatantly lie about global warming? same question for the right. Why do they tell you 'the debate is over' suggesting that there is scientific consensus of indisputable proof man has caused global warming when they know it isn't true.umm, because there is a pretty large scientific majority...if you are waiting for 100% consensus, that won't happen until New York is underwater A POLITICIAN made a movie about global warming that was filled with intentional lies. They willfully told you and every other American that sciences collectively agrees that global warming is man made. Gore knew when he made the movie (and now) that such remarks are deliberate lies. Why? What's the agenda. Why would they want to spend billions solving problems that don't exist when we could give it to the poor, use the $$ to save social security etc...?
The thing is, the right has as little interest in the actual truth of the matter as AG does. They'll trumpet the studies that say Gore is wrong not because they want the truth, but because they dont like Gore and his alarmism. I don't like his alarmism either, but it's every single bit as dishonest to assume that every study denying GW must be right and the 100 fold more studies showing it exist must be wrong simply because you hate the people that use them as an excuse to be alarmist retards.

The point I'm trying to make is that everyone would be well served to keep an open mind. The scientist quoted at the beginning of this article is right...this kind of science is ****ing difficult. Even the IPCC report, the so-called standard 'where we are now' report, only claims 90% certainty. As science goes, thats a pretty big chance of being wrong. thats 1 in 10 plots that are in that report that are probably wrong...and I bet that report contains a lot of plots. It's difficult to ask any government to make multibillion dollar decisions on 90% certainty.

At the same time, a lot of the deniers are guilty of already deciding that it's anything but, and in the process people trumpet study after study that say it's something other than man, but then these studies turn out to be inconsistent with each other, but they don't care as long as they say it's not our fault. Personally, I think these are the people that are scared that they might have to make a difficult decision in the future.

[Taxman71]

I am just sick of Al Gore using "global warming" as his new crusade to stay in the spotlight and scare everyone to hell. He's probably the only one who goes back for thirds at all those Hollywood buffets.

A couple weeks back I watched a good show on Discovery about the mini Ice Age that essentially froze over Greenland, killed off the Vikings and made Europe a cole SOB for several hundred years. Scientists believe it was caused by frequent volcano explosions averaging 5 per year whereas we now experience 1 every 10 years or so(?). My conclusion is that global warming is a natural cycle for the earth and, even if it is ocurring, it isn't man-made.

Air, water and the earth as a whole is much cleaner than 100 years ago. Should we use less gas and oil and preserve wilderness and rain forests? Yes, obviously. But I don't need Al Gore to tell me that.

[landrun]

Ike here's a challenge. I keep an open mind but do something for me (all of us).

Find one GW alarmist that doesn't already (or isn't going to) make money, or gain political power, off of a GW 'crisis'. If you do, I'll bet that person also express reservations as to the certainty of it and I'll bet they would be hesitant about spending billions of dollars to 'solve' the 'problem'.

Again, the point is you don't spend billions of dollars you don't have to fix a problem you may well not have. And to INSIST you have a GW problem and demand that governments force people to take measures to 'solve' GW is near tyranny. Also, to INSIST you do have a problem when a large portion of scientific evidence without doubt says otherwise suggest someone has an agenda. Wouldn't you agree?

[mdklatt]

A couple weeks back I watched a good show on Discovery about the mini Ice Age that essentially froze over Greenland, killed off the Vikings and made Europe a cole SOB for several hundred years. Scientists believe it was caused by frequent volcano explosions averaging 5 per year whereas we now experience 1 every 10 years or so(?). My conclusion is that global warming is a natural cycle for the earth and, even if it is ocurring, it isn't man-made.


You should try to get that published in a journal. It's possible that the authors of the IPCC report don't get the Discovery Channel.

I figured out what bothers me the most about all the global warming "controversy". It's that for some baffling reason, everybody who had an 8th grade earth science class considers themselves an expert: "A bunch of Ph.Ds who have studied climate change their entire careers? Pfft. What could they possibly know that I don't?"

Even if global warming is occurring? Dude, doubting global warming is so last year. You must not have got the pubz memo. It's getting increasingly difficult to deny that global warming is happening what with the melting glaciers and all, so the current tactic is to simply deny that human activity can have any effect.

Global warming is a completely natural phenomenon. But what makes you think that it can't also be a man-made problem in this case? Even if we are in a natural warming cycle, man-made greenhouse gases could make it worse. Or maybe we're not in a natural warming cycle at all, and it's all man-made. Different causes can have the same effect. Did they not mention that on the Discovery Channel?

[yermom]

Ike here's a challenge. I keep an open mind but do something for me (all of us).

Find one GW alarmist that doesn't already (or isn't going to) make money, or gain political power, off of a GW 'crisis'. If you do, I'll bet that person also express reservations as to the certainty of it and I'll bet they would be hesitant about spending billions of dollars to 'solve' the 'problem'.

Again, the point is you don't spend billions of dollars you don't have to fix a problem you may well not have. And to INSIST you have a GW problem and demand that governments force people to take measures to 'solve' GW is near tyranny. Also, to INSIST you do have a problem when a large portion of scientific evidence without doubt says otherwise suggest someone has an agenda. Wouldn't you agree?


it's not Ike's fault. he went into Science all wide-eyed and innocent and ready to change the world. the problem is that once he started working with them he was taken into the corruption and now is one of them.

it's sad, really

[mdklatt]

Find one GW alarmist that doesn't already (or isn't going to) make money, or gain political power, off of a GW 'crisis'. If you do, I'll bet that person also express reservations as to the certainty of it and I'll bet they would be hesitant about spending billions of dollars to 'solve' the 'problem'.


How about you do the same for global warming deniers.

What exactly are these "billions of dollars" we're supposedly going to have to spend to solve the problem?

Oh my god! They're going to make us all buy cars that are more fuel efficient! The horror! I don't want to get 30 MPG and you can't make me!

[yermom]

the precious corporations' bottom lines are in danger!

[Xstnlsooner]

No matter what boys, never forget that MONEY makes the world
go round, whatever form of gubment...

[SCOUT]

How about you do the same for global warming deniers.

What exactly are these "billions of dollars" we're supposedly going to have to spend to solve the problem?

Oh my god! They're going to make us all buy cars that are more fuel efficient! The horror! I don't want to get 30 MPG and you can't make me!
They interview many experts who don't think it is man made. They also specify that they have never made a penny from industry or others because of their conclusions.

The video is here. It is long but I thought it was worth it.
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90641

[mdklatt]

the precious corporations' bottom lines are in danger!

I even call bull**** on that. Automakers were testifying in Congress the other day, complaining how higher CAFE standards would bankrupt them.

I bet it wasn't Toyota or Honda who were complaining. I think they lead the pack in CAFE, and they certainly lead the pack in profits. Duh, I wonder if there's any connection....

Just how would this hurt profits anyway? They're just going to pass the extra cost on to the consumer...plus a mark-up, no doubt. And do they think that making their cars more fuel efficient is going to make them less desirable? Again, I bet Toyota and Honda would disagree.

[landrun]

Global warming is a completely natural phenomenon. But what makes you think that it can't also be a man-made problem in this case? Even if we are in a natural warming cycle, man-made greenhouse gases could make it worse. Or maybe we're not in a natural warming cycle at all, and it's all man-made. Different causes can have the same effect. Did they not mention that on the Discovery Channel?

I read a couple of years ago where scientists say that the exact opposite is true. The rising temperatures naturally causes an increase in greenhouse gases.

There's two sides to every story. Especially if the story has political implications behind it and power and money are on the line.

[landrun]

mdklatt, not following you around on this thread, but Chevrolet has the most fuel efficient vehicles in the world. Superior to the foreign automakers.

Was chevy testifying in front of congress? (I honestly don't know)

[yermom]

I even call bull**** on that. Automakers were testifying in Congress the other day, complaining how higher CAFE standards would bankrupt them.

I bet it wasn't Toyota or Honda who were complaining. I think they lead the pack in CAFE, and they certainly lead the pack in profits. Duh, I wonder if there's any connection....

Just how would this hurt profits anyway? They're just going to pass the extra cost on to the consumer...plus a mark-up, no doubt. And do they think that making their cars more fuel efficient is going to make them less desirable? Again, I bet Toyota and Honda would disagree.

i'm not really talking about car companies... more like oil and energy companies, but not limited to them

[yermom]

mdklatt, not following you around on this thread, but Chevrolet has the most fuel efficient vehicles in the world. Superior to the foreign automakers.

Was chevy testifying in front of congress? (I honestly don't know)

how do you come up with that?

the most fuel efficient? on average? or the sheer number? what?

really, i want to know. most of their passenger cars are pretty good on gas...

[skycat]

mdklatt, not following you around on this thread, but Chevrolet has the most fuel efficient vehicles in the world. Superior to the foreign automakers.

Was chevy testifying in front of congress? (I honestly don't know)

Actually, I think Huffy makes the most fuel efficient vehicles in the world.

Followed by Vespa.

[BigRedJed]

Ike, have you watched the video linked in the thread that SCOUT linked to? I'm only about halfway through it, but it's pretty much a jawdropper for me. I've always been a fence-sitter on global warming. I certainly felt like it was possible, and I'm down with conservation. But I also wondered if it was being overstated for political reasons, and doubted that, as some will tell you, the scientific community was completely, 100% behind the idea that climate change was due to humans.

I've got to tell you, that special is pretty compelling. Detailing how the credentials of dissenting scientists, who withdraw from the IPCC in protest, are still used by that body to justify its findings while at the same time it neglects to mention that particular scientist disagrees with the findings, is rather damning.

I was expecting a bunch of fringe scientists to be interviewed in a special that attempts to debunk the current global warming hysteria, but, unless they're lying about who these people are, they were very impressively credentialed. MIT, UVA, NASA? All of them the heads of their respective climatalogical/geological/meterorogical departments? The presentation of the climatalogical hills and valleys that have been known to exist throughout our short human history was also pretty amazing.

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on it.

[mdklatt]

The video is here. It is long but I thought it was worth it.
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90641

I only watched a couple of minutes of it (for now), but I already have some doubts. One of the "experts" I assume they're going to rely on lost all credibility in his introduction. I think he was a physics professor from Tel Aviv. First of all, being a physics professor doesn't mean you know diddly squat about climate change. But the really damning thing is that he said something to the effect of, "At first I believed that CO2 caused global warming because that's what I heard in the media." A scientist who would ever take the media at face value on a scientific issue is not worth listening to on that issue.

At first glance, what is interesting about this video is not that it denies global warming but that it denies anthropogenic global warming. The evolution of the anti-GW argument is mirroring that of the pro-GW (so to speak) argument, only a few years behind.

The first scientists who started talking about global warming were doubted by the rest of the community. After awhile, the consensus came around to the realization that global warming was happening...but what was the cause? Now the consensus is coming around to a man-made cause.

The same thing is happening among the skeptics. In the past year or so I've noticed a change from "global warming is a hoax" to "man-made global warming is a hoax". You can even see that evolution in the GW threads here. In a few years the anti-GW argument is going to be, "man-made global warming might be real, but the solutions you're proposing [i.e. money I don't want to spend] won't have an effect".

In fact, we're already seeing that in the criticism of the Kyoto treaty. The major complaint from the anti-GWers is now that countries like India and China have major exemptions even though they're a huge part of the problem. Why does that matter unless man-made global warming is real in the first place?

[Ike]

Also, to INSIST you do have a problem when a large portion of scientific evidence without doubt says otherwise suggest someone has an agenda. Wouldn't you agree?

The problem is that a much much larger portion of the scientific evidence says that we have a problem, and that it will probably need fixing. A whole lot of people on both sides have already reached their conclusions based upon studies that they choose to believe because they happen to like the conclusions drawn from them. There's a lot of stuff happening...much of it fits very well with what we already know about greenhouse gasses and the amounts we put into the air. Some of it, not so much.

As to your first part...I'm going to ignore it because I really don't care. The alarmists and the staunch deniers are, in my opinion, equally retarded and only trying to protect the interests they already have.

[picasso]

doesn't Al's critically acclaimed movie have the word "Truth" in the title?

that might be the problem with some.

[mdklatt]

mdklatt, not following you around on this thread, but Chevrolet has the most fuel efficient vehicles in the world. Superior to the foreign automakers.

I tried googling for CAFE rankings, but couldn't find anything. I do recall commercials claiming that Chevrolet has the most fuel-efficient cars, though. But we all know commercials lie. ;)



Was chevy testifying in front of congress? (I honestly don't know)

I'm pretty sure GM was there. Honda and Toyota could have been too for all I know. But it's not much of a stretch to think that struggling US auto makers are going to jump at any excuse to explain why they can't make money rather than admitting they make ****ty cars compared to the competition.

Again, how is being forced to make more fuel-efficient cars going to hurt their bottom line? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Okla-homey]

According to PETA, livestock farts are playing a significant role in global warming.

Just saying.

[mdklatt]

According to PETA, livestock farts are playing a significant role in global warming.



That seems contrary to the interests of PETA, so it must be true.

[picasso]

PETA has a fort/stockade in the mountains of Colorado where they live, eat and breed with the animals.

I saw it on Southpark.

[Ike]

Ike, have you watched the video linked in the thread that SCOUT linked to? I'm only about halfway through it, but it's pretty much a jawdropper for me. I've always been a fence-sitter on global warming. I certainly felt like it was possible, and I'm down with conservation. But I also wondered if it was being overstated for political reasons, and doubted that, as some will tell you, the scientific community was completely, 100% behind the idea that climate change was due to humans.

I've got to tell you, that special is pretty compelling. Detailing how the credentials of dissenting scientists, who withdraw from the IPCC in protest, are still used by that body to justify its findings while at the same time it neglects to mention that particular scientist disagrees with the findings, is rather damning.

I was expecting a bunch of fringe scientists to be interviewed in a special that attempts to debunk the current global warming hysteria, but, unless they're lying about who these people are, they were very impressively credentialed. MIT, UVA, NASA? All of them the heads of their respective climatalogical/geological/meterorogical departments? The presentation of the climatalogical hills and valleys that have been known to exist throughout our short human history was also pretty amazing.

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on it.

I haven't watched it, and if I were a dissenting scientist that had withdrawn from the IPCC and found that my name was on their report after I had stated I didn't want it on there, well, I'd be phoning lawyers. There are a lot of impressively credentialed scientists in a lot of fields that are on the fringe, for a variety of reasons....Martin Fleishmann was impressively credentialed for example. As far as I know, the natural hills and valleys that have existed historically are probably accurate...however, the assertion that what we are experiencing here and now is a natural phenomenon is a difficult one to make, as is the assertion that GW is man made. The man-made assertion is slightly easier (not a lot, but slightly) to test due to the fact that we know what greenhouse gasses do (and if we don't we can do the experiments on a smaller scale), and not only that, but to a rough estimate, we should be able to know how much of them we are putting into the air. Testing the natural-cycle hypothesis is pretty difficult because as far as I know, there is no explanation of the causes of these natural cycle, and without that, it's hard to test the cause of our current uptick.

To be honest, I'm not surprised that the drafting of the IPCC report turned political...I work in a collaboration of about 600 scientists, and the papers produced by my experiment carry the name of every single one of them, and you better believe that the process of getting a paper out gets political at times. I'll watch the vid when I get a chance, but if it is like what you are saying it is like, then the scientists should have known better when they signed on to it, because they probably knew the authorship rules to begin with. In our collaboration, the authorship rules require that objections from any one of our 600 or so members be addressed to the satisfaction of the objecting member before anything is approved for submission....if the IPCC did something different, quite frankly, I think they should be a little ashamed of themselves.

[Fraggle145]

I guess you could call me an "alarmist." :rolleyes: The main problem in my mind is that it is a moral and a scientific issue. The other problem is that there is a very time sensitive component to the implications of GW. Ike is right when he states that the report is 90% certain, and in Ike's field that is a large margin of error, however in my field, ecology, we consider things a statistically significant result when its probability of occuring is 90-95%. This is because we accept the inherrant variability within a system as something that must be accounted for and in this case we have exactly one earth that we can try to figure things out with (i.e, we cant do full-size experiments).

Anyway, I digress. The point is the majority of scientists think that there is a GW problem and that mankind is a major part of it. Scientists have also shown that global temperature change is cyclical and has been for at least 600,000 years, however it is currently on a very fast rate of increase and that this may be because the CO2 levels are at higher levels than they ever have been in earth's history, which is a fact. They also have shown there is a rise in global mean temperature and and increase in air and ocean temperatures. But for the scientists this is just the majority... there are dissenting opinions. And as many are fond of saying "well Copernicus wasnt in the majority," but I ask you to think about this: Who is really the majority in this situation, although denying GW may not be the opinion of the majority of scientists, what about the majority of the public?

Whether I like it or not there are important economic, politcal, and moral consequences to this issue. First of all I think the political issue is crap. If anyone really despised hyperbole then I dont think that we would have went to war or been in support of it. Basically that is a double edged sword. Hyperbole is used by both sides to create support it just depends where you sit whether it is seen as that or not. As soon as anyone on here says that they believe global warming is happening then we are branded a bleeding heart liberal, which may or may not be the case. If you hate Al Gore then good for you, but that doesnt mean his message may not be correct.

On the economy, since when does becoming more efficient make you lose money? the US auto companies are going broke because they refuse to live up to the standards of the global market, and cant sell their cars anywhere but the US because they dont meet the emissions standards of any place else in the world where they are worth selling. Thats why the new emissions standards will "break" them. Which I think is an excuse for saying "we want to go about business as usual instead of having to think of a solution, because thinking is hard." Someone earlier asked "why spend billions of dollars trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist? who says that in the long run you arent going to make money? In my opinion both of these cases are what is called the argument from "personal ineptitude." Basically stated it is I cant fathom a solution or how this could be the case, so it mustnt have a solution or it mustnt be the case. In this instance: Its to hard to change and I cant see why we should so that means since I cant understand it we shouldnt do it. A weak argument at best.

So what about the moral issue? Really whether anyone on the otherside of the GW issue from me wants to acknowledge it or not there is a moral component to global warming. It comes down to: should we, even if we dont believe in it, make adjustments before it is too late even if it is inconvenient or should we not since it hasnt been proven? Well if you are waitng for proof you will be waiting a long time because science never actually proves anything, it strives to falsify hypotheses that arent true as that is the only way you can know for sure about something. So if we think that our ineffeicient use of Carbon has ramifications for the environment and for our children should we stop being so inefficient? That is the overall question at least in my opinion.

I urge you to make up your own minds about it and to be skeptical. However, I also urge you to err on the side of caution that has the least possible detrimental effects if you are wrong. There is a lot of evidence out there, but it is important for us to make up our own minds instead of letting the media do it for us as is the case for pretty much everything else. It basically comes down to who or what you want to believe.

[TheBobbyTrain]

I think it's kinda funny that people say that the climate is as warm as it's ever been. Well, we've had accurate weather records for about 114 years. Earf is about 5.3 billion years old, therefore we've had accurate weather records for 0.0000000215% of Earf's lifespan, so how do we know exactly how hot it's gotten in the past or what the long term meteorological/geological patterns are? I agree that we need to clean up the environment for health reasons, but I think the earth is going to do what it wants to do.

Also- isn't it documented somewhere that in the 1400's Scotland had wineries? Doesn't it have to be pretty warm to grow grapes and isn't Scotland a not very hot place now?

[SoonerGirl06]

What exactly are these "billions of dollars" we're supposedly going to have to spend to solve the problem?

Oh my god! They're going to make us all buy cars that are more fuel efficient! The horror! I don't want to get 30 MPG and you can't make me!

Well apparently the US auto manufacturers and the UAW don't think it's a good idea to make more fuel efficient cars.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/15/business/news/15_38_433_14_07.txt (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/15/business/news/15_38_433_14_07.txt)

[Dio]

You're all missing the boat. We need to go after the one thing that causes global warming more than anything else-

BAN THE SUN BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!!!!1!!!11

[mdklatt]

I think it's kinda funny that people say that the climate is as warm as it's ever been.

Well don't laugh too hard, because nobody is saying that. Or at least not anybody you should be listening to.

This is the warmest period on record, i.e. the 114 years or so you're been talking about (although some places have records going back a lot farther than that).

Something like ten of the warmest years on record have been in the past 15 years. Does that seem more like random variance or a trend? In fact, it's now largely accepted as a statistically significant trend. One that just happens to coincide with a very similar trend in atmospheric CO2.

[mdklatt]

Well apparently the US auto manufacturers and the UAW don't think it's a good idea to make more fuel efficient cars.


They also seem to be opposed to making cars that don't suck, so I'm not sure how valid their business opinions are. :D

Is it really going to cost that much to increase CAFE by a measly 4%? That's about 1 MPG. Including a free tire gauge with each car so people can make sure their tires aren't underinflated will boost mileage by that much. I found this earlier: http://www.aceee.org/pubs/t003.htm. It's from 2000, but check this out:


Historic fuel-economy data reveals a disturbing trend -- every automaker’s average new vehicles emit more global warming gases today than ten years ago, with the exception of BMW. In 1999, US fuel economy overall dropped to its lowest value in 20 years. Two decades of fuel-saving technologies that could have helped curb CO2 emissions have instead gone into increasing vehicle weight and performance.

That doesn't sound like a technological barrier to me.

Say it does cost more to make a more efficient car. Don't you think GM and friends are simply going to add that to the cost of the car (plus dealer holdback, prep charge, invoice fee, TTL, financing surcharge, etc.)? How does this hurt the auto industry? If anything it hurts the consumer--until you realize that higher MPG means you spend less money at the gas station.

Saving money over the life of the car, sending less money to unsavory overseas governments, helping the environment...WHY IS THIS A BAD THING??? :confused:

[SoonerGirl06]

They also seem to be opposed to making cars that don't suck, so I'm not sure how valid their business opinions are. :D

Ain't that the truth...


Is it really going to cost that much to increase CAFE by a measly 4%? That's about 1 MPG. Including a free tire gauge with each car so people can make sure their tires aren't underinflated will boost mileage by that much. I found this earlier: http://www.aceee.org/pubs/t003.htm. It's from 2000, but check this out:



That doesn't sound like a technological barrier to me.

Say it does cost more to make a more efficient car. Don't you think GM and friends are simply going to add that to the cost of the car (plus dealer holdback, prep charge, invoice fee, TTL, financing surcharge, etc.)? How does this hurt the auto industry? If anything it hurts the consumer--until you realize that higher MPG means you spend less money at the gas station.

Saving money over the life of the car, sending less money to unsavory overseas governments, helping the environment...WHY IS THIS A BAD THING??? :confused:

Well apparently their current strategies aren't working because their profits are in the hole, so you'd think they'd change things around and try something different. IMO I think the UAW is holding them back due to the fear of technological advances taking away job opportunities for their members, thus diminishing the role/effectiveness of the UAW.

Whatever monies they have to spend to make cars more fuel efficient and decrease the level of emissions are going to be passed on to the consumer anyway... so IMO I think the Big 3 are a bunch on whiney asses that need to get off their candy asses, stop belly-aching and make better, fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles.

[Fraggle145]

I think it's kinda funny that people say that the climate is as warm as it's ever been. Well, we've had accurate weather records for about 114 years. Earf is about 5.3 billion years old, therefore we've had accurate weather records for 0.0000000215% of Earf's lifespan, so how do we know exactly how hot it's gotten in the past or what the long term meteorological/geological patterns are? I agree that we need to clean up the environment for health reasons, but I think the earth is going to do what it wants to do.

Also- isn't it documented somewhere that in the 1400's Scotland had wineries? Doesn't it have to be pretty warm to grow grapes and isn't Scotland a not very hot place now?

We actually have records going back 600,000 years in terms of data taken from ice cores, and I think in the next couple of months another study is coming out that goes back to almost 1,000,000 years using icecores to document temperature and CO2.

It is true like I said in my previous comment that temperatures have been cyclical throughout earth's lifespan. However, humans have only existed since the last ice age. We have never been outside of the temperature range that we are beginning to deviate from now. So while it has been warmer earlier in earth's history we werent around to deal with it. Second the fact is that the current trend in temperature increase closely correlates to CO2.

To address your second point, just because it snowed in your yard or the Scots grew grapes during the medieval warming period doesnt meant that global warming isnt happening right now. There was a medieval warm and they are still attempting to determine what was actually happening with the weather during that time. However, the reason it is theorized to have reverted back to a colder climate was that the ice between what is now Hudson Bay and what used to be a glacier lake broke and the cold water rushed into the Atlantic causing a cooling of the gulf stream sending western europe back into an ice age.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

This is a plot of mean temperature variation. you can see the medieval warm and the little ice age that followed...

[KABOOKIE]

We call PHD's at work

Preperation
H
Dispensers

Why? Because they're usually so wound up around data they wouldn't know the real world from their arse. And guess what? It's the guys out in the shop with the 8th Grade education that end up fixing the problem.

[KABOOKIE]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


Holy ****! I see a tremendous amount of scatter in that plot to tell me anything about what the temperature will be 20 years from now. Never mind that fact that trying to extrapolate temperature by comparing ice core samples and today's highs has a high degree of unreliability.

[mdklatt]

I see a tremendous amount of scatter in that plot to tell me anything about what the temperature will be 20 years from now.

That's because they don't teach regression in 8th grade earth science.

:twinkies:

[SoonerGirl06]

Holy ****! I see a tremendous amount of scatter in that plot to tell me anything about what the temperature will be 20 years from now. Never mind that fact that trying to extrapolate temperature by comparing ice core samples and today's highs has a high degree of unreliability.

Huh.... all I see are a bunch of colored squiggly lines. :rolleyes:

[KC//CRIMSON]

Natural cycles or not, to say we don't participate in it's advancement is crazy talk.

[Fraggle145]

Holy ****! I see a tremendous amount of scatter in that plot to tell me anything about what the temperature will be 20 years from now. Never mind that fact that trying to extrapolate temperature by comparing ice core samples and today's highs has a high degree of unreliability.

Agreed there is a lot of scatter. however, I dont see any other scatter that goes that high... do you? each one of those colored squiggly lines is a different set of ice core data. Of course there are going to be fluctuations... the warm gets warmer and colder every year with the season. Or there might even be fluctuations between years or several years :eek: However it seems to me when you look at the overall forest and not the trees that the trend with all of the different icecores is pointing to the fact that it is getting warmer.

And how unreliable is ice core data really? do you have any quantification as to how or why it is unreliable? do you know of a better method to get data that is 600,000 years old?

[Jeopardude]

I am just sick of Al Gore using "global warming" as his new crusade to stay in the spotlight and scare everyone to hell. He's probably the only one who goes back for thirds at all those Hollywood buffets.



Yes, Al is fat! And he flies in planes!

[landrun]

Natural cycles or not, to say we don't participate in it's advancement is crazy talk.

Sure it is. Just like the new ice age we were warned about in the 70s is 100% reality also. Re-read this thread. There are open-minded scientists (not power hunger money loving politicians) who say the rising temperate is normal AND natural. I guess they're crazy?

[Fraggle145]

You know my favorite argument against global warming...


Its all the hippies agenda! Goddamn that al gore, its a conspiracy! We dont cause any of this. They are just trying to make us panic! If we do anything the economy will crumble! Goddamn that Al Gore! he flies in planes! What does he do to stop global warming!

What about the agenda of the oil corporations? what about the agenda of the power companies? etc, etc, etc...

Blah, blah freakin' blah. everyone has an agenda. That is weak. sauce.

[Fraggle145]

Sure it is. Just like the new ice age we were warned about in the 70s is 100% reality also. Re-read this thread. There are open-minded scientists (not power hunger money loving politicians) who say the rising temperate is normal AND natural. I guess they're crazy?

There are open-minded scientists (and more of them mind you) that say its true...

What about the power hunger money loving politicians that dont believe in global warming... so they are above reproach? They dont have an agenda? :rolleyes: Or how about this one... Where are those scientists getting their money?

Technology between now and in the 70s isnt comparable we are light years ahead of where we were then.

The real question is: what do you think we should do about it?

[SoonerBBall]

There are open-minded scientists (and more of them mind you)

I see this "THERE ARE WAAAY MORE SCIENTISTS THAT THINK IT IS MAN-MADE THAN NOT!" sentiment expressed in a lot of places, but how do we know this is true?

Mind you, I believe global warming exists, but I will remain skeptical about the cause until one side or the other (or maybe both!) can show their side to be true.

[Fraggle145]

I see this "THERE ARE WAAAY MORE SCIENTISTS THAT THINK IT IS MAN-MADE THAN NOT!" sentiment expressed in a lot of places, but how do we know this is true?

Mind you, I believe global warming exists, but I will remain skeptical about the cause until one side or the other (or maybe both!) can show their side to be true.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1820590&postcount=13

Here is article from Science in 2004. Science is arguably the most prestigous primary research journal. I have included the published rebuttal letter that the article got as well.

[Taxman71]

To paraphrase Dennis Miller, I don't have a lot of faith in the thermostats used during the days of Ghengis Kahn. Temperatures weren't a big deal when you draped yourself in a boar's hide year round and roamed the asian steppes.

[KABOOKIE]

That's because they don't teach regression in 8th grade earth science.

:twinkies:

I can only imagine how much dumber we'd all be if they did.

[KABOOKIE]

Agreed there is a lot of scatter. however, I dont see any other scatter that goes that high... do you?

Look at the years 900-1000


And how unreliable is ice core data really? do you have any quantification as to how or why it is unreliable? do you know of a better method to get data that is 600,000 years old?

My statement wasn't that ice core data wasn't purely unreliable. Rather unreliable when compared with air tempartures.

[sitzpinkler]

I just think it's usually lamentable when the "herd," influenced by popular culture/media/rockstars/whomever, accept scientific propositions as fact without doing any thinking or research themselves. When I was a young Jedi, my masters always taught me to always think critically. I wish everyone would.

That's pretty much how I feel about religion.

[Fraggle145]

Look at the years 900-1000. My statement wasn't that ice core data wasn't purely unreliable. Rather unreliable when compared with air tempartures.

Years 900-1000 doesn't look near as high to me. 2004 is 0.2C higher. You also have to remember that that number on the right has gone up another 0.3C since 2004.

Well of course when compared with air temperatures it is not going to be as accurate, yet it is the best we have and the deeper ice layers are bound to be more accurate than the top layer, as they are not actively participating with the environment.

Also I was wondering if you have a source for that argument, I would like to look at that data myself and see the comparison as most studies (like the graph I added) use air temperatures for as long as we have records of them.

:pop:

[Fraggle145]

That's pretty much how I feel about religion.

Aint that the truth... :D

[mdklatt]

My statement wasn't that ice core data wasn't purely unreliable. Rather unreliable when compared with air tempartures.

How would you know this?

[KABOOKIE]

How would you know this?


Well when comparing apples to oranges one might find out they're bananas.

[Fraggle145]

Well when comparing apples to oranges one might find out they're bananas.

So you are saying that you dont have a study to back that up?

[soonerhubs]

I don't know why everyone is complaining about the GW problem. I though Presidential term limits were in place. He'll be gone soon. :D

[Fraggle145]

I don't know why everyone is complaining about the GW problem. I though Presidential term limits were in place. He'll be gone soon. :D

Thank god he is a moran. not that whoever is coming in on either side is that much better...

[Harry Beanbag]

That's pretty much how I feel about religion.


Do you feel the same way about the Global Warming Hysteria religion? Cuz that's what it is turning into, and there are zealots everywhere. I foresee some Jonestown style koolaid drinking in the near future.

[KABOOKIE]

So you are saying that you dont have a study to back that up?


Nope. No study or PHD required to know a fundamental error in data collection when I see one.

[KABOOKIE]

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/4011/2000yeartemperaturecompgz3.th.png (http://img122.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2000yeartemperaturecompgz3.png)

[picasso]

That's pretty much how I feel about religion.
all of them or one in particular?

[sitzpinkler]

all of them or one in particular?

all

[1stTimeCaller]

just yours, hippy

[picasso]

just curious because ya know you COULD say enviornmentalism is a religion. for some anyway.

same goes for UFO's and ****.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/4011/2000yeartemperaturecompgz3.th.png (http://img122.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2000yeartemperaturecompgz3.png)

Little Ice Age II: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO!

[Sooner_Bob]

I won't believe it until James Cameron makes a documentary about Al Gore's documentary.

[sooneron]

Ain't that the truth...



Well apparently their current strategies aren't working because their profits are in the hole, so you'd think they'd change things around and try something different. IMO I think the UAW is holding them back due to the fear of technological advances taking away job opportunities for their members, thus diminishing the role/effectiveness of the UAW.


This is one of the most laughable things I have read in this thread. Yeah, Joe Lunchpail is the one responsible for what Detroit is turning out. Buy a vowel and solve the puzzle, its the numbers guys that are looking at the cheapest bottom line possible and the corp. execs that hire them.

[SoonerGirl06]

This is one of the most laughable things I have read in this thread. Yeah, Joe Lunchpail is the one responsible for what Detroit is turning out. Buy a vowel and solve the puzzle, its the numbers guys that are looking at the cheapest bottom line possible and the corp. execs that hire them.

I didn't say that... Mr. Spin-My-Words-Sooneron. I'm not blaming Joe Lunchpail for the **** poor profits of the Big 3 auto makers in Detroit. I said that the current ways that the auto makers are doing business are obviously not working, thus they should make some changes.

In his comments the other day to members of Congress, the UAW President stated that it was not a good idea to make the cars produced by the Big 3 more fuel efficient as it would take away jobs from his members. That thinking IMO is holding the American car companies back from being able to produce cars that are more fuel effiencent and competitive with the foreign car makers.

[Fraggle145]

Nope. No study or PHD required to know a fundamental error in data collection when I see one.

so let me know the next time you have a real argument that presents some data etc... fundamental error in data collection when you have no evidence :rolleyes:

whatever... you cant believe it so it mustnt be true. got it.

bring something to the table or dont call it out.

[Fraggle145]

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/4011/2000yeartemperaturecompgz3.th.png (http://img122.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2000yeartemperaturecompgz3.png)

making up data... even though the factual data uses your beloved air temperature... thats the original black line.

Edit: Fixed. Sorry again for the uncalled for comment.

[Fraggle145]

Do you feel the same way about the Global Warming Hysteria religion? Cuz that's what it is turning into, and there are zealots everywhere. I foresee some Jonestown style koolaid drinking in the near future.

Is it any worse than the whole economy is gonna die religion? if so let me know...

[KABOOKIE]

so let me know the next time you have a real argument that presents some data etc... fundamental error in data collection when you have no evidence :rolleyes:

whatever... you cant believe it so it mustnt be true. got it.

bring something to the table or dont call it out.


Real argument? Your graph presents core sample data against air temperatures. That is a fundamental error in data gathering. Now there's is nothing else we can look at to understand temperatures 1000 years ago but, saying there is a direct connection is flawed.

[KABOOKIE]

making up data... even though the factual data uses your beloved air temperature... thats the original black line jack a$$.


Hey it was a joke. I thought it was funny. And I've address the issue between using air samples and core samples to make a direct comparison.

As for your jackass comment..... I'll let it slide assuming you can at least understand apples to oranges comparisons.

[soonercody]

...

Air, water and the earth as a whole is much cleaner than 100 years ago. ...

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Harry Beanbag]

Is it any worse than the whole economy is gonna die religion? if so let me know...


I'm not sure because I have no idea what you're talking about. :confused: But I think you may be a bishop or at least a deacon in the Church of Global Warming.

[Fraggle145]

making up data... even though the factual data uses your beloved air temperature... thats the original black line jack a$$.


Hey it was a joke. I thought it was funny. And I've address the issue between using air samples and core samples to make a direct comparison.

As for your jackass comment..... I'll let it slide assuming you can at least understand apples to oranges comparisons.

Sorry for the jackass comment. I know better than that. I just got caught up in the moment and overly hot. I guess at the time I didnt see the humor in your statement. Still that is no excuse and I want to apologize. I wasnt on here yesterday as I was out drinking green beer all day so i couldnt see the aftermath of my comment then. Sorry again, and no hard feelings on my end.

[KABOOKIE]

Sorry for the jackass comment. I know better than that. I just got caught up in the moment and overly hot. I guess at the time I didnt see the humor in your statement. Still that is no excuse and I want to apologize. I wasnt on here yesterday as I was out drinking green beer all day so i couldnt see the aftermath of my comment then. Sorry again, and no hard feelings on my end.


Cool.

Heh. Get it? ;)

[goingoneight]

As I remember it, Greenland was cold, Iceland was warm and nice. But I've never been to either one, so yeah... :confused:

[Scott D]

I'm pretty sure GM was there. Honda and Toyota could have been too for all I know. But it's not much of a stretch to think that struggling US auto makers are going to jump at any excuse to explain why they can't make money rather than admitting they make ****ty cars compared to the competition.

Again, how is being forced to make more fuel-efficient cars going to hurt their bottom line? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Toyota attended.