Global warming

[Krissnikkers]

Hi

Thought I would ask you guys what you think of global warming and how aware of it are you. Coming from Britain we are very committed to changing the way we use everything even if it means it costs more..although I must have to admit I have changed my carbon footprint and I am a lot better off!..and feel good about it as well.

Kriss

[Lion Country Viking]

I believe climate change is nothing more than the latest episode in the normal cycle of global temperature fluctuations that have occurred since time immemorial. If any outside factor manipulates the temperature of the Earth, it is the sun, and the intensity of solar radiation at any given point in time.

The idea that human activity is causing some sort of irreversible climate change that is going to lead to some sort of global catastrophe is nothing more than the invention people who seen an opportunity to empower international bureaucracies, take control of whole industries and bring about global socialism.

I offered my thoughts on the propaganda behind all this in this column.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I'm not!

[Krissnikkers]

Good point there....personally I believe that yes solar flares do have something to do with it but are we not helping it by using fuels that send all of these horrible gases into the air...if not cut down our carbon footprint for the good of the planet then why not for the good of people...these gases can't be doing any of us any good whatsoever?

Kriss

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

The idea that human activity is causing some sort of irreversible climate change that is going to lead to some sort of global catastrophe is nothing more than the invention people who seen an opportunity to empower international bureaucracies, take control of whole industries and bring about global socialism.

Ahhhh, the old "it's a socialist plot" theory. Good plot for a science fiction novel, not so good for solving important problems.

Of all the issues with which I'm deeply disappointed with American conservatives, global warming is probably the biggest. The reason for that is two-fold.

The first reason is that skepticism of global warming isn't actually a politically conservative position. It's doubt about the science, which happens to be not just thorough but also a growing body. That is, we're more certain of global warming and what impact it might have than we were 10, five, and even two years ago. Skeptics like to try to cast themselves in the mantle of Galileo, fighting the consensus view; the problem is that in Galileo's time, forming opinions based on observations, testing, and other things that today form the scientific method went against the consensus. Today, we hold Galileo in high esteem and seek to emulate him. And, in doing so, we have observed that the world is warming, and that our emissions of certain gases are largely responsible.

The second reason is that they're writing themselves right out of the debate. Instead of arguing the science, conservatives should be arguing what they argue best ... how to solve global warming economically. Instead, Al Gore has been championing the market while conservatives still insist that the glaciers aren't melting. Heck, I've seen some of them argue (one of the cartoonists for the Detroit News, for instance) that because government sets the cap in a cap-and-trade and is supposed to monitor it, that it's a form of socialism. Why aren't conservatives figuring out how to fix Europe's flaws?

[Lion Country Viking]

Just because you're more certain doesn't mean you're more correct.

And I, for one, am certainly not writing myself out of the debate - unless you define the terms of the debate as "how do we solve this problem we're causing?" as opposed to "who says we're causing anything and who says it's a problem?". The latter represents my terms, and I'm perfectly happy debating it on my terms.

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

And I, for one, am certainly not writing myself out of the debate - unless you define the terms of the debate as "how do we solve this problem we're causing?"

This is the debate, and today it includes Big Oil (Exxon Mobil wants more fuel efficient cars, and stopped giving money to skeptics), the automakers, both houses of Congress, other components of industry, insurance companies (fewer and fewer insurers will take out policies on properties along the American East Coast), the Pentagon, the states, Newt Gingrich ... even last week, your little boy prince of a president again acknowledged global warming (his proposed solution was a big nothing, of course). Heck, I saw Brit Hume declare that global warming was real, that we're responsible for it, and that we need to craft a solution, on Fox News one night. All of this is in addition to the world scientific community (except for the usual cranks and industry flaks like Steve Milloy and Fred Singer who got their start being skeptical of tobacco's link to cancer).

I mean, the other two have been answered authoritatively over the last decade. Who says we're causing anything? Well, the science of the carbon cycle and the basic physics behind the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon (and other molecules) and re-radiation as heat. Also, the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linear increase in the planet's surface temperature. Who says it's a problem? Well, golly, our entire lifestyle is dependent on reliable weather. If we alter the climate, we will no longer know if Iowa, for example, will be a reliable source of corn.

[Lion Country Viking]

Eric, this is so unlike you. If you think conventional wisdom is whacked, do you just fall in and salute? I bet you don't!

So why should I? Nothing you have said here - and nothing anyone else has said - convinces me, and obviously a lot of other people, that conventional wisdom on global warming is correct.

What you define as the debate is only that because the people who think like you have decided not to listen to the people who don't think like you. OK by me. You're missing out on part of the debate then as well.

Just because you've declared the debate over, and your side victorious, doesn't make it so.

[Krissnikkers]

Oh this is fun!....Personally I see it from a scientific viewpoint simply because I have done Physics so I understand the science behind it and yes we are messing up this planet just because we want things easily...a massive discussion over here is how much we use on packaging our groceries these days...

For me wrapping a single item of fruit in clingfilm is really not on at all!...and why do we use plastic bags all of the time we used to use brown paper bags and yes I can remember using them. We really need to look at how we live do we live better or not...personally I don't think we do we are a lot more unhealthy and we are definately the throw away culture and also need everything that the Jones has even if it means throwing out perfectly good items to have what they have!

We are still definately 'Human Racing' and listening to people saying that things will be coming up 'Roses'..Dan will understand those references...

Kriss

[Lion Country Viking]

Well Kriss, just because it's bogart to be wasteful doesn't mean our one world is being wounded. Some people think you don't have to be the sun to change the earth's climate. Temperature fluctuations occurred in the days of cowboys and Indians. What's causing it now? Nobody knows!

[Krissnikkers]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

Well Kriss, just because it's bogart to be wasteful doesn't mean our one world is being wounded. Some people think you don't have to be the sun to change the earth's climate. Temperature fluctuations occurred in the days of cowboys and Indians. What's causing it now? Nobody knows!

I am impressed!...

Kriss

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

Well Kriss, just because it's bogart to be wasteful doesn't mean our one world is being wounded. Some people think you don't have to be the sun to change the earth's climate. Temperature fluctuations occurred in the days of cowboys and Indians. What's causing it now? Nobody knows!

That's the problem, Dan. They do know. They've known for 20 years. They can measure the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, they understand the carbon cycle and know where it comes from, they know that carbon molecules absorb infrared radiation reflected off the surface of the planet and re-emit it as heat. They also know and understand all of this when applied to other, different molecules. They understand what causes weather and how climate is impacted by heat, and they can produce computer models on what this will do over time. They know and understand all of this to the point where they can declare (considering a scientist's healthy sense of skepticism) that we are the principal drivers of global warming to a 90 percent certainty.

On whether any of this is true, you aren't arguing against me, an independent who leans politically liberal, or the Sierra Club; you're arguing against physicists and climatologists on things they've studied their entire careers.

[Lion Country Viking]

Originally Posted by Eric Baerren

That's the problem, Dan. They do know. They've known for 20 years. They can measure the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, they understand the carbon cycle and know where it comes from, they know that carbon molecules absorb infrared radiation reflected off the surface of the planet and re-emit it as heat. They also know and understand all of this when applied to other, different molecules. They understand what causes weather and how climate is impacted by heat, and they can produce computer models on what this will do over time. They know and understand all of this to the point where they can declare (considering a scientist's healthy sense of skepticism) that we are the principal drivers of global warming to a 90 percent certainty.

On whether any of this is true, you aren't arguing against me, an independent who leans politically liberal, or the Sierra Club; you're arguing against physicists and climatologists on things they've studied their entire careers.

But so are you, Eric, because there are physicists and climatologists who don't agree with these conclusions, and that was the point of my column about the propaganda of it all.

Anyone who dissents from the conventional wisdom is labeled an outlier or a "denier," and people attempt to say - as you have done here - the debate is over, even though there are still people with things to say.

That doesn't speak well for your side's confidence in its own position, and for me it certainly casts suspicion on the agenda behind the position.

We have to stop debating and act now!

Really? Why? Maybe because they're afraid the trend will start reversing itself in another 10 years? And then no one will support the socialist policies and U.N. oversight that the global warmists of 2007 are pushing?

The debate goes on, and there is no reason to jump the gun on any actions whatsoever. The Earth is exceptionally resilient, and the Sun remains a more powerful force than anything man can do.

And even if all this were somehow true, the question is not, "How do we stop it?" The question is, "Is lowering the temperature of the earth 1.5 degrees over 100 years worth the trouble of all the industrial controls, economic impacts and bureaucratic monstrocities that would be put in place to achieve it?"

You want to have the debate? That's the debate. And the answer is NO WAY.

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

But so are you, Eric, because there are physicists and climatologists who don't agree with these conclusions, and that was the point of my column about the propaganda of it all.

Aside from Richard Lindzen, name one that isn't tied to corporate money.

Anyone who dissents from the conventional wisdom is labeled an outlier or a "denier," and people attempt to say - as you have done here - the debate is over, even though there are still people with things to say.

If you are a scientist and espouse something that is well beyond the mainstream view, you are an outlier. It's the same as if I produced a poll that said that most Americans think George Bush is doing a bang-up job. It's contrary to basically every other poll that it's called an outlier.

And, yes, the debate over whether global warming is happening, and whether it's driven primarily by people, is over. Within the scientific community, it was settled 20 years ago.

That doesn't speak well for your side's confidence in its own position, and for me it certainly casts suspicion on the agenda behind the position.

It doesn't speak well for my confidence that I can describe the phenomenon, it's causes, where it's expected to go, and express to the degree of certainty in all of this among people who are experts in it?

Anyway, what's my agenda? ... Of course, it's that I want my son to grow up in a world where long-term weather patterns aren't chaotic, that he can reliably live near the coast without fear that the annual summer storms aren't going to destroy his home, or that people in Africa already suffering because they lack access to clean water won't die because what water they have dries up and isn't replaced, that the desert Southwest remains habitable, that the Great Lakes don't further recede, and that animal migration patterns and the time when tree buds appear don't change. All of these things are reflected in computer models, and all of them are already happening.

Really? Why? Maybe because they're afraid the trend will start reversing itself in another 10 years? And then no one will support the socialist policies and U.N. oversight that the global warmists of 2007 are pushing?

A) A cap-and-trade program isn't socialist. No matter how finely you cut the definition of it, it's a market-driven program. B) If you know what is causing an phenomenon, and do nothing to stop the stimulus, the phenomenon isn't going to stop.

The debate goes on, and there is no reason to jump the gun on any actions whatsoever. The Earth is exceptionally resilient, and the Sun remains a more powerful force than anything man can do.

They've measured the output from the Sun for 50 years. There has been no increase in solar radiation that can account for global warming. On the other hand, they very well understand what happens when you hit carbon molecules with infrared radiation. It absorbs the radiation and re-emits it as heat.

But, you're right, the debate does go on. Today, people are discussing how to mitigate global warming. This is where you're writing yourself out of the debate.

And even if all this were somehow true, the question is not, "How do we stop it?" The question is, "Is lowering the temperature of the earth 1.5 degrees over 100 years worth the trouble of all the industrial controls, economic impacts and bureaucratic monstrocities that would be put in place to achieve it?"

1.5 degrees is the projected average increase of the Earth's surface temperature. Some places, like the poles, will see larger warming (hence, the melting ice caps and projected sea level increases), and some will actually cool. As for the impacts on the economy, what exactly will those be? How are those any worse than crop failures and the inundation of our port cities?

On the other hand, prosperity in a capitalistic system relies on what? Increasing markets. Or, opening new markets. In this case, that means new technology and trading on carbon.

[Vidar]

I have looked into the topic some and have found no solid evidence that global warming is being caused by humans. It shocks me that so many people fall for the fear created by it. Go back 30 years and scientists were debating global cooling.

I would find it funny if not for the amount of money being spent because of it. Science (Physics, chemistry, et al) does not support claims that an increase in carbon dioxide levels could cause the temperature increases that the global warming believers predict.

Our planet has a fantastic ecosystem that will reach continue to sway like a pendulum. It is not at all unlike the balance we observe in something such as the wolf population. That is when there is plenty of prey the wolf population increases. This causes the amount of prey to decrease eventually, and the competition eventually causes the wold population to decline again. This leads to the prey population rising again and the cycle starts over.

Similar balance mechanisms are why the earth was cooling 30 years ago and it now warming. It will again start to cool one day eventually. Carbon dioxide levels will swing back and forth based on what we can produce vs what we plants can consume.

I am all in favor of being efficient. This includes both not wasting energy and not wasting money chasing a guess. I have advice for people that are so concerned about carbon dioxide levels that they want to spend money to alter it; the mission will be accomplished much cheaper if they simply stop breathing.

Edited to add: Here is an article I found that points out some flaws in the global warming charade: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275267,00.html

[Lion Country Viking]

Vidar, don't you know that quoting Fox News is only legitimate if it's Brit Hume saying man is responsible for global warming? Quoting this piece doesn't count because Fox News is GOPTV!

[UpperMissouriVike]

The higher the CO2 levels the worse global warming is supposed to be, right?

[Lion Country Viking]

Originally Posted by UpperMissouriVike

The higher the CO2 levels the worse global warming is supposed to be, right?

So we are told . . .

[Lion Country Viking]

Oh, I have some questions too:

1. Why is a scientist who's tied to "corporate money" illegitimate, but a scientist who's tied to UN money is completely unadulterated? Does the UN have no vested interest in global warming orthodoxy?

2. If the global warming agenda is really not socialism, but is really about opening markets, why would "corporate money" be fighting it?

[UpperMissouriVike]

are the 2nd highest in the US. Air here is still very clean. Water levels are down but that has more to do with barges in southern states. Corp of Enginees screwed that one up for us. There's flooding going on all over ND right now. Why isn't the co2 level wreaking havoc on ND if our levels are so high?

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

Oh, I have some questions too:

1. Why is a scientist who's tied to "corporate money" illegitimate, but a scientist who's tied to UN money is completely unadulterated? Does the UN have no vested interest in global warming orthodoxy?

2. If the global warming agenda is really not socialism, but is really about opening markets, why would "corporate money" be fighting it?

1. Most of the prominent scientists who've pushed global warming either work for a government agency (James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt for NASA, for instance) or are associated with various universities. Are there some who work for the U.N.? Undoubtedly, but it was American scientists working for the American government during the Reagan years who first brought the issue to the public. There are also scientists who work for foreign governments, and conducting private research who have provided evidence of global warming, and they come from a wide range of disciplines.

2. Because it isn't about opening new markets, it's about mitigating global warming. You do that by opening new markets, where it's easier for new people to make money. Exxon Mobil's future is more secured if the world concentrates on oil, for instance, rather than if the world starts diversifying where it gets its energy and starts trading carbon.

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Vidar

I have looked into the topic some and have found no solid evidence that global warming is being caused by humans. It shocks me that so many people fall for the fear created by it. Go back 30 years and scientists were debating global cooling.

I would find it funny if not for the amount of money being spent because of it. Science (Physics, chemistry, et al) does not support claims that an increase in carbon dioxide levels could cause the temperature increases that the global warming believers predict.

Our planet has a fantastic ecosystem that will reach continue to sway like a pendulum. It is not at all unlike the balance we observe in something such as the wolf population. That is when there is plenty of prey the wolf population increases. This causes the amount of prey to decrease eventually, and the competition eventually causes the wold population to decline again. This leads to the prey population rising again and the cycle starts over.

Similar balance mechanisms are why the earth was cooling 30 years ago and it now warming. It will again start to cool one day eventually. Carbon dioxide levels will swing back and forth based on what we can produce vs what we plants can consume.

I am all in favor of being efficient. This includes both not wasting energy and not wasting money chasing a guess. I have advice for people that are so concerned about carbon dioxide levels that they want to spend money to alter it; the mission will be accomplished much cheaper if they simply stop breathing.

Edited to add: Here is an article I found that points out some flaws in the global warming charade: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275267,00.html

Steven Milloy is a disreputable source who got his start doubting tobacco's link to cancer. You'll also notice that he's an "adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute," which receives heavy corporate subsidies for ... well, take a guess. But, here:

Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

In short, he's a professional skeptic and industry shill.

Anyway, there is a lag between emissions and temperature. You don't burn oil today and cause the temperture to rise immediately. That's why they tell us that even if we stopped burning oil today, that the temperature would continue to rise.

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Vidar

I have looked into the topic some and have found no solid evidence that global warming is being caused by humans. It shocks me that so many people fall for the fear created by it. Go back 30 years and scientists were debating global cooling.

A. They weren't debating global cooling 30 years ago. Time and Newsweek pretended that it was the big new thing, but it caught on more with the media than it did with scientists. Bad journalism does not equate to scientific debate.

B. I don't know what you mean by "no solid evidence," but I recommend you go spend some time with these folks. They're actual scientists who are studying global warming. You'll notice that they have comments and even respond to them. I don't pretend to be a scientist, so I won't even bother trying to convince you how much solid evidence there is linking human activity to global warming. Go ask them ... I'm sure they'll hook you up (in fact, I've seen them do it before).

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by UpperMissouriVike

are the 2nd highest in the US. Air here is still very clean. Water levels are down but that has more to do with barges in southern states. Corp of Enginees screwed that one up for us. There's flooding going on all over ND right now. Why isn't the co2 level wreaking havoc on ND if our levels are so high?

What kind of havoc do you expect?

[Candace Talmadge]

Count me as a skeptic of the theory that human-created levels of carbon dioxide are the primary cause of global warming.

One again, boys, follow the money.....

There's are billions of greenbacks to be made in the "global warming" scare, which reminds me sharply of the "WMDs in Iraq" scare of half a decade ago.

In fact, the entire hysteria over global warming, and the assertion that anyone who doubts it is in league with 1) evil oil companies; 2) satan; 3) general evil everywhere, reminds me a lot of the Bushies who insisted that anyone who doubted the existence of Iraq WMDs was rooting for the terrorists.

We all of us have our "smelly little orthodoxies," to borrow from George Orwell.

[UpperMissouriVike]

Wow! Was it that long ago already?

The havoc I speak of is the same havoc that is supposed to be happening globally as a result of co2 levels. Hotter temps, irratic storms, blah blah. Essentially the same weather patterns that have been happening since we've been able to keep track of the weather.

North Dakota has been a little dryer than normal but certainly no worse than it was during the dirty thirties. High co2 levels are suppose to cause more cancers and illnesses. The cancer treatment center in Dickinson ND is closing because there aren't enough people with cancer. 18,000 people in that town and approx another 10,000 plus in surrounding communities.

2nd highest levels in the US and life is good.

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by UpperMissouriVike

Wow! Was it that long ago already?

The havoc I speak of is the same havoc that is supposed to be happening globally as a result of co2 levels. Hotter temps, irratic storms, blah blah. Essentially the same weather patterns that have been happening since we've been able to keep track of the weather.

North Dakota has been a little dryer than normal but certainly no worse than it was during the dirty thirties. High co2 levels are suppose to cause more cancers and illnesses. The cancer treatment center in Dickinson ND is closing because there aren't enough people with cancer. 18,000 people in that town and approx another 10,000 plus in surrounding communities.

2nd highest levels in the US and life is good.

Was what that long ago already?

Look, I really don't mean to sound rude here, but I don't know if I'm supposed to take this seriously. Localized carbon dioxide concentrations don't create weather patterns; and the link between carbon dioxide and cancer is wholly unrelated to this (and something until I was trying to sort out your comment didn't even know is alleged to exist).

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Candace Talmadge

Count me as a skeptic of the theory that human-created levels of carbon dioxide are the primary cause of global warming.

One again, boys, follow the money.....

There's are billions of greenbacks to be made in the "global warming" scare, which reminds me sharply of the "WMDs in Iraq" scare of half a decade ago.

In fact, the entire hysteria over global warming, and the assertion that anyone who doubts it is in league with 1) evil oil companies; 2) satan; 3) general evil everywhere, reminds me a lot of the Bushies who insisted that anyone who doubted the existence of Iraq WMDs was rooting for the terrorists.

We all of us have our "smelly little orthodoxies," to borrow from George Orwell.

What evidence is there that this is about money? Who makes the money, and how has this conspiracy managed to dupe the world's entire scientific community?

Also, for Dan, how does the notion that global warming is a money scam jibe with your belief that global warming is a socialist conspiracy?

[Krissnikkers]

If you wonder why I am keeping quiet here it is because this discussion is absolutely fascinating and I am throughly enjoying reading all of your views...thanks!

Kriss

[Lion Country Viking]

Originally Posted by Eric Baerren

What evidence is there that this is about money? Who makes the money, and how has this conspiracy managed to dupe the world's entire scientific community?

Also, for Dan, how does the notion that global warming is a money scam jibe with your belief that global warming is a socialist conspiracy?

Eric, come on. You don't think that global socialism puts money in people's pockets? The people who will populate the international bureaucracies set up to enforce the regulations will be set for life, as their monstrocities grow in size and scope exponentially - as do all bureaucracies, but especially this one, because there will be no electorate to whom it is ever responsible.

Was the premise of the question that a socialist conspiracy couldn't be about money? Because only capitalists chase after money, and socialists are just after sharing and goodness?

Dang. That's funny.

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

Eric, come on. You don't think that global socialism puts money in people's pockets? The people who will populate the international bureaucracies set up to enforce the regulations will be set for life, as their monstrocities grow in size and scope exponentially - as do all bureaucracies, but especially this one, because there will be no electorate to whom it is ever responsible.

Was the premise of the question that a socialist conspiracy couldn't be about money? Because only capitalists chase after money, and socialists are just after sharing and goodness?

Dang. That's funny.

So, a shadowy international cabal of socialists got together one day, and decided to dupe the world's scientific community (including McCain Republican James Hansen, one of the world's most foremost experts on climate change and chief driver behind bringing it to the world's attention) into believing that we are heating the planet ... for job security? With a gang that canny, I'm not at all surprised they managed to also snooker President Bush.

Three questions:

1) If U.N.-based socialists are behind this, how was it that American scientists (James Hansen himself a McCain Republican) during the Reagan years were the first to bring the issue to public awareness. How come no scientists have come forward with evidence -- perhaps a memo, signed in triplicate, from some dull-witted bureaucrat -- if this is a global sting where mankind at large is the mark? What evidence exists that this is a conspiracy?

2) If this is all about creating bureaucracies, then why did Europe skip the kinds of regulatory schemes and create a market-driven cap-and-trade program where the people primarily making money are people who are cheating the system?

3) Who first introduced you to this scheme? It's obviously widespread enough that everyone who thinks this way couldn't have come up with it on their own.

[belcherboy]

I hear so many conflicting reports on global warming from all kinds of scientists. I read this today that claims that earth worms are causing more global warming than humans:

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63227

Scientist Implicates Worms in Global Warming
Jim Frederickson, the research director at the Composting Association has called for data on worms and composting to be re-examined after a German study found that worms produce greenhouse gases 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide

And from the same news outlet:

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63182

Global Cooling in 2020
Scientific research starting in 2002 is now sparking theories of global cooling. "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth."

Perhaps the news source is faulty, but there is so much disagreement among scientists about the real reasons and danger of global warming that I don't buy into the "we're all gonna die" theory yet.

[Lion Country Viking]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Perhaps the news source is faulty, but there is so much disagreement among scientists about the real reasons and danger of global warming that I don't buy into the "we're all gonna die" theory yet.

What? There is no disagreement! Anyone who claims to disagree is just bought off by corporations! The debate is over!!!!

Oh, and welcome to our board, belcherboy. Good to see you here!

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

What? There is no disagreement! Anyone who claims to disagree is just bought off by corporations! The debate is over!!!!

Oh, and welcome to our board, belcherboy. Good to see you here!

I don't think you're bought off by corporations. In fact, if you have evidence that a shadowy cabal of international socialists is behind a misinformation campaign to dupe the world's scientific community, I'm happy to entertain it.

Until that time, and until such time as the prominent dissenters aren't professional skeptics who are on their second or third campaigns (some started in tobacco, some have participated in the anti-Rachel Carson DDT campaign), I'm going to have to go with what the scientists, whose models have been largely accurate to this point, have to tell us.

[Lion Country Viking]

What about the solar scientists belcherboy cites in his post. Aren't they scientists too?

As for the international cabal of socialists, they can be found in a very tall and ugly building with lots of flags in front, in a place called Turtle Bay.

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I hear so many conflicting reports on global warming from all kinds of scientists. I read this today that claims that earth worms are causing more global warming than humans:

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63227



And from the same news outlet:

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63182



Perhaps the news source is faulty, but there is so much disagreement among scientists about the real reasons and danger of global warming that I don't buy into the "we're all gonna die" theory yet.

Did you go to the original sources for these articles? I don't really have the energy right now to go through the science of global warming, which is available any numbers of places and written by people more eminently qualified to do so than me, but they've been measuring the content of the atmosphere for decades upon decades. But, although the gas in question -- nitrous oxide -- is indeed a greenhouse gase, it's not increasing as quickly in concentrations as carbon dioxide. So, I wouldn't go around blaming the worms.

Also, the second article comes directly from Newsmax. Did you read it? Dude blames the sun. The only problem? They've also been measuring output from the sun for decades, and haven't found any appreciable increase in solar energy. This is related to the recent hullabaloo made famous by, among others, Fred Thompson, who blamed the sun for warming on about half the bodies floating around the sun. The problem? If the sun were responsible, you'd see warming on all of them, not just some. Also, the warming connected with some of the more distant ones, if attributed to the sun, would mean that it'd be so hot on Earth that it would melt rock.

On the other hand, here is the conclusion reached by the latest gathering of the world's climate scientists, in a report they produced for the world's governments:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (see Figure SPM.3).

You're free to go read it for yourself. In fact, if you're as truly baffled by conflicting news reports (which is by design), I'd highly recommend that you go read it. Go through the entire IPCC Web site. You'll find that scientists, who are by nature skeptics (even of their own work) aren't really as divided as you've been led to believe.

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

What about the solar scientists belcherboy cites in his post. Aren't they scientists too?

They've been arguing this for seems like an eternity.

Also, the second article comes directly from Newsmax. Did you read it? Dude blames the sun. The only problem? They've also been measuring output from the sun for decades, and haven't found any appreciable increase in solar energy. This is related to the recent hullabaloo made famous by, among others, Fred Thompson, who blamed the sun for warming on about half the bodies floating around the sun. The problem? If the sun were responsible, you'd see warming on all of them, not just some. Also, the warming connected with some of the more distant ones, if attributed to the sun, would mean that it'd be so hot on Earth that it would melt rock.

No one's said that the sun unequivocably plays no role, but the way our atmosphere is heating is consistent with anthropogenic global warming, not solar radiation. Anyway, again, they've measured solar radiation for five decades, and they've found no evidence that it's increased appreciably. This provides a pretty good explanation.

As for the international cabal of socialists, they can be found in a very tall and ugly building with lots of flags in front, in a place called Turtle Bay.

This isn't evidence.

[Lion Country Viking]

Originally Posted by Eric Baerren

There isn't evidence.

Of what?

That the UN constitutes a cabal? That they're socialists? That they will believe/promote/perpetrate anything that provides them with relevance and power?

The evidence is the organization's entire history, and everything it has ever done.

[Eric Baerren]

Originally Posted by Dan Calabrese

Of what?

That the UN constitutes a cabal? That they're socialists? That they will believe/promote/perpetrate anything that provides them with relevance and power?

The evidence is the organization's entire history, and everything it has ever done.

Let's steer this right back to the topic at hand, which is about whether global warming is the product of a soclialist plot. What evidence do you have that this is the case?

[Lion Country Viking]

Originally Posted by Eric Baerren

Let's steer this right back to the topic at hand, which is about whether global warming is the product of a soclialist plot. What evidence do you have that this is the case?

I don't know that I portrayed it as a "plot" per se. It is simply the latest excuse being used by international socialists to gain power.

Name your cause. Fairness. Health care. Hunger. Global warming. The world must act!

Act how? Through international regulating bodies, of course. They'll label it "market-based" as they do with their cap-and-trade schemes, but with no government-imposed caps, there would be no trades. These people don't even know what market-based means.

The UN and its fellow travelers don't have to "plot." They just have to do what they do naturally. Jump on every alleged crisis for which they can make the case that the solution is power for them.

[Libby]

Just to add my very simple two cents without reading through all the science and politics...

Whether global warming is based on fact or not, what's the real harm in doing a few simple things to make a possible difference for your children? I suppose some take it too far and that's unfortunate. However, turning off the lights when you leave a room, keeping your house a few degrees cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer, riding a bike or walking if you just have to make a trip down the street are all ways to help the planet or just save you a few dimes. Does it have to be more complicated, really?