this is scary!! what s the world coming to

[mr.magoo]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/climate_report

 

[JustBob]

Global warming is real, but how much of it is caused by human actions can certainly be debated. Problem is, you never hear those points of view because global warming has become a religion where the skeptics are automatically shunned and accused of working for big oil companies.

 

[EagerBeaver]

You guys need to read Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear" and also read his testimony before the US Senate on this issue. Here is a transcript of his testimony, which discussed the politicization of research on global warming:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote09.html

You guys are forgetting that most of these global warming research studies are being funded by groups with political agendas, who are paying for a result consistent with the agenda.

Since all of this may be over the heads of the average simple minded poster, here is a summary of what Crichton said in his book and in his testimony before Congress (in three simple words which you can understand):

Scienticially Unverifiable Bullshit!

In case you guys don't know who Michael Crichton is, he is a VERY smart man, graduated from Harvard Medical School and is a multi millionaire best selling novelist.

 

[Love big tits]

Go ahead put your head in the sand like ostriches all you want guys time will tell unfortunatly for the planet and all of us.

"après moi le déluge" in other words you are saying fuck the consequences and everyone who comes after me all that counts is me, myself and I.

If this, the four answers before me (without counting JustBob) are an indication of the concern for this planet we are doomed indeed especially when looking at China who thinks just the same. Michael Crichton makes a good argument but what does he do for a living?...He writes fiction novels although well researched what makes him a better expert? the fact that he makes a few more millions than us?

JustBob I do agree that a middle ground is probably the truth but to reach a middle ground you always need two opposites extremes, otherwise the middle ground will be reached somewhere else. I mean: the middle ground between 0(extremist nature oriented) and 100(oil company) is 50 where as the middle between 50(reasonable people) and 100(oil company) is 75. In any talks the 2 first antagonists would reach a middle ground better for the planet and all of us.

 

[mooner]

Hey EB

In case you guys don't know who Michael Crichton is, he is a VERY smart man, graduated from Harvard Medical School and is a multi millionaire best selling novelist.

The operative words here are : best selling novelist
novel : an extended fictional work in prose
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You should not believe what novelists write!
Case in point 1: War of the Worlds
Case in point 2: Jurassic Park
Case in point 3: The Da Vinci Code
etc.

The average temp in Montreal for the last week of dec 06 & first week of jan 07 = 50 degrees Farenheit
Average temp for that period over the last 30 years = 10F

QED

 

[EagerBeaver]

Mooner,

Did you read the book State of Fear or the testimony I posted? State of Fear is a novel but it contains extensive citations to REAL scientific research, on both sides, the value of which Crichton debates in the book. Why do you think he was invited to testify before the US Senate? Because he is a fucking stunod who knows nothing on the topic?

 

[Agrippa]

You guys are forgetting that most of these global warming research studies are being funded by groups with political agendas, who are paying for a result consist with the agenda.

I have read the Crichton piece and will not deny that the issue of global warming, at this point, is more of a political one than it is scientific. Nor is it easy to gather this kind of data; the 'field' being uncontainable.

BUT, pray do tell what a university professor doing research in his field of studies (not writing fiction about dinosaurs) would have to gain by inventing or exaggerating (or in your mind, creating) the threat that is global warming? Fear mongering? Running the economy to the ground?

Have you heard of peer review?

What would the oil companies, industries that inherently pollute and hog farmers have to gain by discrediting global warming on the other hand? A lot more, don't you think?

Have you seen Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"? There's some rather incontestable facts in there? I'd like to hear if you believe that it is also "Scienticially Unverifiable Bullshit!" [sic]

 

[Techman]

You should not believe what novelists write!

That depends on the novelist. For example: Arthur C. Clark is a respected novelist and he also invented the communications satellite.
Crichton is well respected in scientific circles as well as being a best selling author. He's not a hack.

The average temp in Montreal for the last week of dec 06 & first week of jan 07 = 50 degrees Farenheit
Average temp for that period over the last 30 years = 10F

If that continues for the next 30 years, then maybe your point will be valid. Not to mention that in the overall scheme of things, 30 years isn't even a drop in a drop of water in the bucket of the history of the planet.

 

[Love big tits]

So Michael knows what he is talking about, ok granted does it make him the final and last guy you should listen to for advice?
He is a smart guy no denying that, is he a wise guy? "Wise" and "smart" are both ways of saying someone knows what to do. The difference is that "wise" means one has a high average outcome across all situations, and "smart" means one does spectacularly well in a few.
Do I want to decide an issue because one guy said so, no.

Now back to the regular debate, should we care about global warming or should we care about who has the biggest political agenda behind it?

 

[Love big tits]

If that continues for the next 30 years, then maybe your point will be valid

And all with beach front property will be drowned.

 

[Agrippa]

Now back to the regular debate, should we care about global warming or should we care about who has the biggest political agenda behind it?

Regardless of what happens we should care. This is stated by Crichton himself in Testimony before the US Senate.

In closing, I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be taken to imply that we can ignore our environment, or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the contrary, we must dramatically improve our record on environmental management. That is why a focused effort on climate science, aimed at securing sound, independently verified answers to policy questions, is so important now.

Again: Seriously, did congress run out of people to testify?

Bottom line is global warming or not, we live on a finite area with finite resources but, it seems, infinte people. The number of people to feed only keeps growing. The number of people who will/want to drive cars will keep growing (because the stock market and companies are infinite in their growth (yeah right)). We should act responsibly and not as if we are the only people who have and will ever live!

 

[EagerBeaver]

Techman hit on the point that Crichton tried to make, which is that although it appears clear that there is a current warming trend, there is scientific evidence that such trend historically is not unprecedented. Such trend occurred also during the Middle Ages before there were oil companies or cars, so how do you explain that Agrippa? Huh? Do you say those studies are bullshit? What makes them any less bullshit than the studies on current trends that support the current political agendas?

 

[Agrippa]

Such trend occurred also during the Middle Ages before there were oil companies or cars, so how do you explain that Agrippa? Huh? Do you say those studies are bullshit? What makes them any less bullshit than the studies on current trends that support the current political agendas?

Do we have any indication that it was to the same extent? Are we not in agreement that the data collected is sketchy at best?

Once again: What is the current political agenda of the 'greens'? What do they have to gain? A bunch of companies being fined in Canada for polluting too much, and leaving for another country? Jobs and taxes lost? Nobody wants that. Why would it be brought up if it's a non issue?

Is it not self evident that we are polluting more now than ever before? What the consequences are of this pollution, I can't say, nor can anyone seem to agree. But is this not obvious?

 

[Love big tits]

It is not for the global warming only that we should care but for what some of the "alleged"(politically correct "") causes are doing to our health in general.
Looking primarily at respiratory disease and allergies who are at an all time epidemic high due to industrial pollutant, air pollution, water pollution and so forth. Carbon Monoxide is the main culprit in that case, there is no scientific evidence that such trend has precedents.

 

[EagerBeaver]

It is my understanding that the Earth's supply of oil is finite, and will ultimately be exhausted. Before that happens, the old maxim "necessity is the mother of invention" will come into play, and alternative energy sources will be developed. Global warming or not, there is no question that pollution due to oil consumption is at an all time high just based on consumption being at an all time high. More people, more cars, more pollution.

I have always felt that the way to stop this trend is government mandated birth control, a la China, but evidently other countries and cultures have not warmed to the idea. Eventually, pollution, disease and starvation may change all of that.

 

[Love big tits]

necessity is the mother of invention

I just hope it won't come to "necessity is the mother of all war"

 

[Love big tits]

Of interest both sides of the spectrum:

Assertions by supporters and opponents

Listed here are some of the assertions made by supporters and opponents of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming not discussed above. Assertions are included solely because they have been made by one side or the other, without comment on their scientific validity or lack thereof.

[edit]
Assertions by supporters

Supporters of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis assert that:
The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century.[37]
Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than eight hundred thousand years,[38] with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record shows a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.[39]
The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years[40] and this is human-caused, as shown by the isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels.
The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years.[41]
The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
Climate change attribution studies, using both models and observations, find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity; natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change.
Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included.[42]
The IPCC reports correctly summarize the state of climate science.
Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment, and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries to come.[43]
Climate models predict more warming, sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, spread of tropical diseases, and other climactic effects in the future.
The current warming trend will accelerate when melting ice exposes more dark sea and land that will reflect less sunlight; and when the tundra thaws and releases large quantities of trapped greenhouse gases.[44]
Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change. [citation needed]
The Precautionary principle requires that action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming.[citation needed]

Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis tend to support the IPCC position, and thus represent the scientific consensus (though with considerable differences over details, and especially over what action should be taken). [citation needed]

[edit]
Assertions by opponents

Some of the assertions made in opposition to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming include:
The relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after global temperatures rise. [67]
IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.[68][69]
The influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann has been shown to contain errors .
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding. [70]
Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity, [71] changes in sea temperature [72], and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth [73], and take into account other recently discovered feedback mechanisms.[citation needed]
Water vapor, not CO2, is the primary greenhouse gas. Depending on the referenced source, water vapor and water droplets account for 36-70% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 accounts for 9-26%.
Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber but on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber. [citation needed]
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. Therefore, the concern about global warming is likely to be equally alarmist.
The Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, had above-average temperatures for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.
Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.
Climatic changes equal to or even more severe than those on Earth are also happening on other bodies within this solar system, including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton. [74]

There is always two side to concider, I like the cautious one in that case.

 

[Agrippa]

It is my understanding that the Earth's supply of oil is finite, and will ultimately be exhausted. Before that happens, the old maxim "necessity is the mother of invention" will come into play, and alternative energy sources will be developed. Global warming or not, there is no question that pollution due to oil consumption is at an all time high just based on consumption being at an all time high. More people, more cars, more pollution.

I have always felt that the way to stop this trend is government mandated birth control, a la China, but evidently other countries and cultures have not warmed to the idea. Eventually, pollution, disease and starvation may change all of that.

YES, EXACTLY! (particularly disease, starvation and lack of potable water)

Though, forget the "before that happens," it is currently happening. An excellent book by Paul Roberts, The End of Oil, outlines that we are definately in peak oil mode. The fields that used gush oil out, now have to be pumped. Russia and the Persian Gulf just can't keep up barrell production. New fields of a size even comparable to the current ones are not being discovered. We're going downhill!

Global warming or not, indeed, why are governments resisting encouraging weening people off of oil. Instead of still digging up tar sand oil (an incredibly polluting activity) why not be at the fore front and invest in new technologies. Do you have any idea how disastrous it would be if we actually get to the point of "Oh shit, we have no more oil, we should think of coming up with something else?" The 'coming up with something' else needs to be done before. Gas is factored into EVERYTHING. How are those vegetables we buy at the gorcery store going to get there without gas? Price of gas goes up, so does price food, clothes, books. EVERYTHING! Everything we have ever bought has been on a truck at one point or another. Imagine the inflation! Heck we may not even be able to get to work to earn the money we need to pay for gas... too many people live in suburbia.

The entire planet will need the new technology. Why are so few people/countries looking forward?

 

[JustBob]

I've read several articles which pointed out that the "alarmists" get MORE money to fund their research than the "skeptics". So if you want to look for a reason to push the global warming agenda, look no further.

And for the record, it's not because you don't jump on the bandwagon that you necessarily believe that: global warming doesn't exist, that humans have nothing to do with it, or that we shoudn't do anything about it. For example, my opposition to Kyoto has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[Agrippa]

I've read several articles which pointed out that the "alarmists" get MORE money to fund their research than the "skeptics". So if you want to look for a reason to push the global warming agenda, look no further.

That's naive. So you think the researchers take the funding money and put it in their pockets? No, they get funding to buy equipment, travel to the Arctic, drill for samples etc. Then what? What if the research showed that, indeed, there was no correlation between CO2 levels and climate change? The money would be 'refunded' to the funders?

For example, my opposition to Kyoto has nothing to do with any of this.

So you oppose Kyoto because, say, the company you work for would be fined, and would have to cut your job. OK, I understand that.

But do you also oppose that we should cut down on the 'shit' we emit into the atomosphere? Didn't think so. So what should we do? Let everyone figure it out on their own? Sit back while China builds more coal power plants because of their booming population and their primitive technology?

Kyoto is necessary! How else will you get countries to cut down emissions?