Global Warming

[king of swing]

its kinda annoying but watch it

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q71cMRGXx9o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q71cMRGXx9o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

heres the link just in case

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q71cMRGXx9o

[king of swing]

well embeding didn't work but look at the link its a good rant

[stormholloway]

Global warming is the biggest hoax perpetrated on the masses since the official story of 9/11.

[ollinger]

A hoax is usually perpetrated for someone's benefit....who's the beneficiary of this one?

[deucecourt]

Who other than AL GORE

[tbini87]

hahaha, AL Gore! what a joke.

[Trainer]

I see the usual responses from the peanut gallery are right on track :rolleyes:

[princess bossass]

Maybe I'm just not familiar with this guy's schtick, but it seems odd that he's so clever, well-spoken, and funny, and there seems to be some decent film editing involved in putting that clip together...yet they couldn't find a better location to shoot than someone's basement? And they couldn't bother with decent lighting?

Film-nerd nit-picking aside, he's spot-on.

I wonder if people who consider global warming a hoax similarly dismiss everything else the scientific community widely agrees on. Like, you know, gravity, photosynthesis, the irish potato famine.

Last tangent: I'm not even a Christian, but did anyone else kind of cringe in spite of themselves when he hefted that Bible toward the back wall? It just seemed unnecessary. What a strange response from me, frankly.

[ollinger]

Explain the potato famine to me. People starved because of potato blight? Isn't Ireland an island....surrounded by water....containing fish....

[princess bossass]

Explain the potato famine to me. People starved because of potato blight? Isn't Ireland an island....surrounded by water....containing fish....

Oh, I was just running my mouth. Yes, I simply meant that the potato crop failed due to leaf blight--it's the accepted science. Why the economy/diet of the irish population was so devastated is not a scientific question, but a complex social/cultural/historical question that I doubt generates nearly as much agreement.;)

[king of swing]

Last tangent: I'm not even a Christian, but did anyone else kind of cringe in spite of themselves when he hefted that Bible toward the back wall? It just seemed unnecessary. What a strange response from me, frankly.


yeah the bible bit was too much...

[stormholloway]

A hoax is usually perpetrated for someone's benefit....who's the beneficiary of this one?

Those who wish to impose carbon taxes and regulate/control natural resources.

[princess bossass]

Those who wish to impose carbon taxes and regulate/control natural resources.

Those imposers would themselves directly benefit? I would like to impose those kinds of taxes/resource control. So i should expect a check in the mail? Sweet.

[ollinger]

Nobody regulates or controls natural resources....I can scarcely think of one that isn't being used as quickly as it can be gathered. I don't see that the primary proponents of global warming -- the scientific community -- are either proposing or expect to benefit from carbon taxes, which in any event nobody expects to see.

[QuietDaze]

I'm not a Christian nor do I claim any religion but the bible throwing was too much. Why he felt the need to do that is beyond me.

As far as global warming, of course there's global warming. I don't think we CAUSED it but how much we contribute to it is the question. And even if it's a miniscule amount why WOULDN'T we want to cut back? Where's the harm in that?

[stormholloway]

Nobody regulates or controls natural resources....I can scarcely think of one that isn't being used as quickly as it can be gathered. I don't see that the primary proponents of global warming -- the scientific community -- are either proposing or expect to benefit from carbon taxes, which in any event nobody expects to see.

Nobody controls natural resources? Ever heard of the Iraq War? Did you think it was about WMDs?

It's easy to get the scientific community to see things your way when you are the one handing out grants.

Regardless, global warming is a myth. Mars and the rest of our solar system is getting hotter too. Did anyone think the sun might be responsible for this *slightly* hotter weather?

[Trainer]

Nobody controls natural resources? Ever heard of the Iraq War? Did you think it was about WMDs?

It's easy to get the scientific community to see things your way when you are the one handing out grants.

Regardless, global warming is a myth. Mars and the rest of our solar system is getting hotter too. Did anyone think the sun might be responsible for this *slightly* hotter weather?

Storm, why on earth would you keep up this nonsense? To answer my own question, I'm guessing that you have a deep seeded issue with paranoia. But I'm sure you seem perfectly normal to yourself?

Or, is it some effort to establish some sense of superiority? Some effort to show us that we're all just sheep, and if we were smart like you, we'd get it too....

Either way, I'm sure a psychiatrist would have a field day with it.

[WBF]

Nobody controls natural resources? Ever heard of the Iraq War? Did you think it was about WMDs?

It's easy to get the scientific community to see things your way when you are the one handing out grants.

Regardless, global warming is a myth. Mars and the rest of our solar system is getting hotter too. Did anyone think the sun might be responsible for this *slightly* hotter weather?

At the risk of sounding like an asshat...

Shut up and read (http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/07/11/modern-warming-sun-down-temps-up)before you come off like an ignorant 12 year old know-it-all. Oh! Too late.

[stormholloway]

At the risk of sounding like an asshat...

Shut up and read (http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/07/11/modern-warming-sun-down-temps-up)before you come off like an ignorant 12 year old know-it-all. Oh! Too late.

You should follow your own advice.

I like this comment at the bottom of that article:

jwbaker
I don't suppose this will silence the "but Mars is warming too!" idiots.

July 11, 2007 @ 11:59AM

Here's a cut from your precious article:

Does this put the issue of the sun's role in recent warming completely to rest? Science is always open to revision, so clearly not. But resurrecting solar influence as an issue is going to take some combination of a significant new data set or a currently undescribed mechanism for solar impact on climate. in the absence of one of those, the field is unlikely to want to revisit the issue.

Now here's a quote from NASA:

for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?ArtId=17977

Now who's the 12 year old? Sit down school boy and speak when you're spoken to.

[WBF]

You're going to tout a quote that basically says "science always changes, but we can't see this changing without any significant new discoveries" as showing that you might be right?

And a random users comment?

and then you go on to point out a two year old study that specifically says it may not be the sun, but it could be... when this NEW article says that there is a good chance that the sun is *not* a cause?

Good job.

[king of swing]

As far as global warming, of course there's global warming. I don't think we CAUSED it but how much we contribute to it is the question. And even if it's a miniscule amount why WOULDN'T we want to cut back? Where's the harm in that?

exactly.
and stormholloway are you serious?? how the hell could human activity NOT be warming the world... we have pumped so much crap into the atmosphere its almost like we really did have aerosol spraying contests.... and damn you would have to be pretty stupid not to see the trend all this pollution is giving us, acid rain poles melting, ect.... and even if global warming is a hoax all that would be left is cleaner air and water, cars that don't run on gas and more freaking trees.. jeez people

[WildVolley]

My favorite thing about Global Warming, Climate Change, etc, is how some people blame every weather event on it.

If it is hot during the summer - global warming. Cold during the winter - global warming. There's a flood - global warming. A hurricane hits New Orleans - global warming. There's a drought - global warming.

Some people seem to have forgotten that similar weather events have been normal not only during my brief life time, but also throughout history.

There's evidence of global warming, though it is still small. The evidence that it is being mostly caused by man is far weaker. Is anyone proposing anything reasonable to do about it? No. Mostly because we are not at a stage of history where we have either the wealth or the knowledge to control the weather.

[stormholloway]

And a good retort.... what?

Mars is warming. Earth is warming. Jupiter's moons are warming. Even Pluto is warming, and you're telling me that there's no solar influence taking place here? Are you an idiot?

[stormholloway]

exactly.
and stormholloway are you serious?? how the hell could human activity NOT be warming the world... we have pumped so much crap into the atmosphere its almost like we really did have aerosol spraying contests.... and damn you would have to be pretty stupid not to see the trend all this pollution is giving us, acid rain poles melting, ect.... and even if global warming is a hoax all that would be left is cleaner air and water, cars that don't run on gas and more freaking trees.. jeez people

Yes, then you'll love paying the new carbon tax global warming pushers have in store for you. You'll also love being taxed per every mile you drive in your car... or did you not know that cars are equipped with boxes that monitor your mileage? I bet you didn't. Gotta love OnStar.

Mars is warming.

Earth is warming.

Jupiter's moons are warming as is Neptune's (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html)

We're not the only ones experiencing global warming. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher has reported that observations obtained by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The warming trend is causing part of Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser.

The whole solar system is heating up. Is it so hard for you sheep to fathom that the sun, a massive nuclear fireball, could be responsible for it?

[king of swing]

I never said that the sun was not doing anything but to load everything that has been happening to this planet simply because the sun is warming up is fairly ridiculous ...oh and have you forgotten that those planets don't have the ozone layer or lack thereof to protect them from the sun... even our decrepit ozone still protects us after a fashion... so obviously if the sun starts to output more heat they will start to warm up.

[WBF]

stormholloway:

1.) Take a basic philosophy course where they teach things like logical arguments.

2.) Take a basic science course where they teach you about such things as correlations, and why it is false to infer that a correlation is due to causation.

3.) Examine your post.

This argument demonstrates the core problem.

I personally don't care whether there is global warming due to humans or not. Consuming limited natural resources willy nilly and polluting the air with chemicals toxic to your own species are two things that the human race would be better off not doing, regardless of whether there is global warming caused by humans.

Wildvolley: I don't think there is any argument against global warming. I think the major problem is whether it's our fault; so you have people like storm who think it's silly to try to stop our actions if the actions aren't affecting global warming. As I say above though, these actions have many other negative repurcussions.

Storm: one more thing... it's the *rate* of global warming in question. We *know* there is global warming, and that some of it is natural, but *how much*? Vague quotes about other planets don't give any indication that you are right here.

[ktownva]

WBF = World B. Free? Just a guess :roll:

[alwaysatnet]

Nobody regulates or controls natural resources....I can scarcely think of one that isn't being used as quickly as it can be gathered. I don't see that the primary proponents of global warming -- the scientific community -- are either proposing or expect to benefit from carbon taxes, which in any event nobody expects to see.The scientific community is gaining from the gobs of grant money that is being thrown into "proving" the theory of man made global warming.
However if you are a scientist that may have a doubt about the "man made" part of global warming you will find yourself ostracized by your professional colleagues. You will find your grant money drying up and you may not even have a job if you displease too many powerful people.
There isn't much profit in being one of the voices that says the sky isn't falling.
And don't be too sure we won't see carbon taxes if the "sky is falling" crowd gets their way. Our favorite steroid popping Austrian govenor is already testing the waters and hinting at just such a thing in California's near future.

[king of swing]

stormholloway:

1.) Take a basic philosophy course where they teach things like logical arguments.

2.) Take a basic science course where they teach you about such things as correlations, and why it is false to infer that a correlation is due to causation.

3.) Examine your post.

This argument demonstrates the core problem.

I personally don't care whether there is global warming due to humans or not. Consuming limited natural resources willy nilly and polluting the air with chemicals toxic to your own species are two things that the human race would be better off not doing, regardless of whether there is global warming caused by humans.

Wildvolley: I don't think there is any argument against global warming. I think the major problem is whether it's our fault; so you have people like storm who think it's silly to try to stop our actions if the actions aren't affecting global warming. As I say above though, these actions have many other negative repurcussions.


well said... thats one of the things the guy in the video tried to explain... whether or not it caused by humans, we should 1. stop polluting and 2. figure out how to avoid any repercussions caused by global warming.

[tbini87]

i hope every one here that is freaked out that glabal warming is happening rides their bike to work and don't own a fridge. that would help out a lot.

[Steady Eddy]

Global Warming is the latest incarnation of a long series of scares. When I was a kid we were told that when we grew up we'd have to go around in gas masks because of air pollution. That never happened, but the people who assured us that it would happen aren't going around apologizing for scaring everyone. Now someone could say that doesn't prove Global Warming isn't a problem, and that would be a fair point. I'm just pointing out that common sense says that the "experts" have cried wolf on alot of things before.

During the early 70's when we had gasoline lines, we were told that was because the planet was running out of oil. You could really get yelled at if you asked if there was enough oil for another 10, 5 or 1 year. But the oil didn't run out, and those experts aren't around saying, "Hey, I'm sorry, I was wrong." I suspect, that like air pollution, few will care about global warming in 20 years. There won't be any disaster, but there will be a new worry, and no one will remember the poor track record of the "experts".

[alwaysatnet]

Ethanol is a enviormental disaster and certainly a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
It's nutrient run off into the Mississsippi river is creating a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico due to algae growth bigger than the states of Connecticut and New Hampshire put together.
We need to use our heads.

[tennis_hand]

i hope every one here that is freaked out that glabal warming is happening rides their bike to work and don't own a fridge. that would help out a lot.

this is exactly the reason why global warming can't be stopped, but can only be slowed. Global warming is the result of human activity. It is unavoidable.
If we want to stop global warming, then we'd better just annihilate ourselves.

and don't forget capitalism we live in. capitalism is about maximizing economic activity and wealth. economic activity means getting more from the environment, otherwise where are all the materials from? we have to dig them out of the earth.

and whenever there is a crisis, who will suffer the most? still those people at the bottom of the social class hierarchy. Now, the rich probably have yachts, helicopters and planes, and several sports cars that produce several times more carbon dioxide than a middle-to-low income class family does. So if you wanna cut that CO2 emission, please first go to tell American's 100 richest families to get rid of their yacht, planes, and sports cars. and let them just drive a Prius. What they do will benefit much more than a low income family. And see how they respond!

[AAAA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4874224.stm

google

european glaciers melting


Dozens of links about how the glaciers in europe are decreasing in size at a faster rate. The glaciers in Europe are from the last ice age.

[CanadianChic]

Global warming is the biggest hoax perpetrated on the masses since the official story of 9/11.

Actually, global warming has been an issue for many decades, specifically within the scientific community. The governments were successful for years in quieting the stats (by means of threatening to restrict grants, cutting various research and development labs, etc.) until recent years. It's amazing how the politicians are using this for their campaign issues (only to be dropped faster than a steaming meadow muffin as soon as the polls are in), yet there are still those who choose to remain ignorant on the topic.

[Steady Eddy]

Actually, global warming has been an issue for many decades, specifically within the scientific community. The governments were successful for years in quieting the stats (by means of threatening to restrict grants, cutting various research and development labs, etc.) until recent years. It's amazing how the politicians are using this for their campaign issues (only to be dropped faster than a steaming meadow muffin as soon as the polls are in), yet there are still those who choose to remain ignorant on the topic.

Many decades? I remember that in the 70's the "scientists" were worried about global cooling. They were afraid that we were heading into another ice age.

I don't understand why the government would quiet stats on global warming. Global Warming issues always end with a demand for higher taxes and new government programs, something the government enjoys.

Politicians who discuss global warming get dropped? Politicians need problems, so that they can be the knight in shining armor who comes to the rescue. (Think of it, can a politician say, "Everything will work itself out, carry on."? No, they need problems, and are (gasp) sometimes willing to invent problems.).

I'm willing to keep and open mind about the issue, but I'll keep a critical mind as well. :neutral:

[WBF]

this is exactly the reason why global warming can't be stopped, but can only be slowed. Global warming is the result of human activity. It is unavoidable.
If we want to stop global warming, then we'd better just annihilate ourselves.

and don't forget capitalism we live in. capitalism is about maximizing economic activity and wealth. economic activity means getting more from the environment, otherwise where are all the materials from? we have to dig them out of the earth.

and whenever there is a crisis, who will suffer the most? still those people at the bottom of the social class hierarchy. Now, the rich probably have yachts, helicopters and planes, and several sports cars that produce several times more carbon dioxide than a middle-to-low income class family does. So if you wanna cut that CO2 emission, please first go to tell American's 100 richest families to get rid of their yacht, planes, and sports cars. and let them just drive a Prius. What they do will benefit much more than a low income family. And see how they respond!

On your point about capitalism: Many studies have shown that cutting our impact on global warming could save enormous amounts of money. This is one of the reasons many major corporations have, or are interested in going green. Insurance in particular.

[stormholloway]

stormholloway:

1.) Take a basic philosophy course where they teach things like logical arguments.

2.) Take a basic science course where they teach you about such things as correlations, and why it is false to infer that a correlation is due to causation.

3.) Examine your post.

This argument demonstrates the core problem.

I personally don't care whether there is global warming due to humans or not. Consuming limited natural resources willy nilly and polluting the air with chemicals toxic to your own species are two things that the human race would be better off not doing, regardless of whether there is global warming caused by humans.

Wildvolley: I don't think there is any argument against global warming. I think the major problem is whether it's our fault; so you have people like storm who think it's silly to try to stop our actions if the actions aren't affecting global warming. As I say above though, these actions have many other negative repurcussions.

Storm: one more thing... it's the *rate* of global warming in question. We *know* there is global warming, and that some of it is natural, but *how much*? Vague quotes about other planets don't give any indication that you are right here.

The rate of our global warming is the same, if not less than Mars. Use your brain, or what's left of it.

It seems to be common for people on this forum to tell others to go back to school. Many within the scientific community believe the entire solar system is warming up due to the sun. This is not so hard to believe. It's an absolute fact that the whole solar system is warming up. It only makes sense that it's the sun.

Instead of debating the facts I've presented, you've dodged them, like most do when they debate me.

You tell me about causation, yet no scientist can prove definitely that humans are causing the warming taking place. You would somehow have to trace the pollution to the actual warming. That's simply not possible. All they have is circumstantial evidence. My circumstantial evidence, warming throughout the solar system, is far more compelling than yours.

[stormholloway]

I never said that the sun was not doing anything but to load everything that has been happening to this planet simply because the sun is warming up is fairly ridiculous ...oh and have you forgotten that those planets don't have the ozone layer or lack thereof to protect them from the sun... even our decrepit ozone still protects us after a fashion... so obviously if the sun starts to output more heat they will start to warm up.

Well Mars is warming at the same rate as Earth and it's farther away from the sun than we are. The ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM is under going climate change but people like you still contend that our pollution is the cause of it.

It's absolutely mind numbing.

[WBF]

Instead of debating the facts I've presented, you've dodged them, like most do when they debate me.

I wonder why.

You tell me about causation, yet no scientist can prove definitely that humans are causing the warming taking place. You would somehow have to trace the pollution to the actual warming. That's simply not possible. All they have is circumstantial evidence. My circumstantial evidence, warming throughout the solar system, is far more compelling than yours.

You make me sad. Goodbye troll.

[stormholloway]

I wonder why.

You make me sad. Goodbye troll.

That's it? That's all the global warming community has to say on the subject?

Well done.

[Salo]

Even though absolute proof of causation is difficult, the consequences of being wrong are so great that I don't understand the 'wait and see' attitude. It's like playing Russian roulette even though you have the choice not to play.

Yes sun output has increased and is warming all the solar system, and stuff like this is cyclical. However, what happens if we're upsetting long time stable equilibriums that have kept the planet livable during these varying cycles? All these what ifs make me very uncomfortable, since we do know that we're in uncharted territory on CO2 levels.

The fact is that throwing a lot of money into science, research, and industry to solve these problem will be GOOD for the ecomony. The ones saying otherwise are heavily invested in the status quo. Say the scientists are wrong and we're not the cause of the warming. We still have a cleaner planet, much less reliance on oil, etc etc.

[Salo]

Oh, and they have very good evidence that the sun can not be the only contributor to the tempurature rise.

From a Duke research paper:
"By considering a 20 –30% uncertainty of the sensitivity parameters, the sun could have roughly contributed 35–60% and 20–40% of the 1900–2000 and 1980–2000 global warming, respectively.

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf

[stormholloway]

The sun isn't the only contributor. Undersea volcanoes are a major contributor as well. The Earth isn't warming any more than Mars, where there are no people emitting exhaust.

People talk about there being no risks of doing something about this warming. Well I, for one, don't believe a carbon tax is going to be good for our economy. Americans are struggling financially as it is.

[alwaysatnet]

There's no doubt there are many bureaucrats licking their chops at the thought of a new inexhaustible form of revenue in the form or carbon taxes. The gravy train the U.N. ministers ride on would put King Louis IVX and his court to shame.
There is nothing the Master Class loves more than another excuse to shear the Under Class sheep yet again.

[mucat]

When I was a kid we were told that when we grew up we'd have to go around in gas masks because of air pollution. That never happened, but the people who assured us that it would happen aren't going around apologizing for scaring everyone.

This actually happen in heavy populated city, while people do not wear masks there (because they got use to the air everyday). Foreigners from small town will sometimes got sick just by breathing there.

[Steady Eddy]

This actually happen in heavy populated city, while people do not wear masks there (because they got use to the air everyday). Foreigners from small town will sometimes got sick just by breathing there.

I wonder what city? Could be Mexico City, Cairo, or a city in China. But I doubt it's in U.S., Canada, or Europe. When people are richer they are more willing to spend to clean the air. But if they're dirt poor, then that's just not a priority. My point is that economic development is good for the environment, and that 'green' ideas of shutting down the economy would backfire.

[autumn_leaf]

here's a good way to see if global warming is real. become a scientist and do an individual study yourself. if your not willing to do that then stop preaching what you don't know as a fact.

[ollinger]

Storm has a point (!!!!!!)....the temp. on Mars is up about 0.5 C. in the past 20 years, comparable to earth, so the contribution of man to the increase on this planet is uncertain.

[princess bossass]

here's a good way to see if global warming is real. become a scientist and do an individual study yourself. if your not willing to do that then stop preaching what you don't know as a fact.

As a wise man once said, "You can take a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it?"

[Phil]

As a wise man once said, "You can take a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it?"

That was me...I said that. First.

Thanks for the compliment.;)

[autumn_leaf]

As a wise man once said, "You can take a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it?"

ummm couldn't i just kill it and then cut it open...???

[princess bossass]

That was me...I said that. First.

Thanks for the compliment.;)

you're welcome.

I thought I was quoting Tommy Boy, but it must have been you. ;)

[princess bossass]

For the record, I didn't believe in in photosynthesis until I conducted a study on my fuscias.

[Hot Sauce]

People actually think global warming is a hoax? The amount of evidence proving otherwise is overwhelming.

[Steady Eddy]

here's a good way to see if global warming is real. become a scientist and do an individual study yourself. if your not willing to do that then stop preaching what you don't know as a fact.

Scientist? What kind of scientist? There's many kinds of scientists with varying degrees of claims about global warming. For my money I'd like the opinion of a Philosopher the most. Someone who studies critical thinking, someone who will look at not only facts, but the relevance of the facts, and whether or not the people claiming there to be a "crisis" are likely to be objective or not. For example, if they are asked, "Is global warming real, and is it serious?", knowing that answering "Yes it is real, and yes it is very serious." means more money for more studies, then I'd take their answer with a grain of salt.

On a more common sense level, some sort of crisis has always been coming, but what kind of crisis changes fashion. Also, cities such as Rome and London have had humans living there for a long time, not practicing sanitary waste disposal for most of that time, but somehow, only in the last 30 years has all this become so fragile. Why did nature change from rugged to fragile in the 70s?

[autumn_leaf]

Scientist? What kind of scientist? There's many kinds of scientists with varying degrees of claims about global warming.

obviously to have the best point of view you should be all of them duh, yes it would take forever but hey if your a genius it'd only take a lifetime, but the hard part is convincing everyone else that your right.

[autumn_leaf]

People actually think global warming is a hoax? The amount of evidence proving otherwise is overwhelming.

i'm sure that there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that global cooling existed.

[stormholloway]

People actually think global warming is a hoax? The amount of evidence proving otherwise is overwhelming.

This just highlights how very ignorant people are on this subject. If you haven't looked at both sides of the argument, then you're ignorant.

Opponents to this theory have been successfully silenced, but you can't ignore the truth of the matter forever.

The CO2 correlation that has been presented is a falsehood. The CO2 increase has been released into the atmosphere AS A RESULT of warmer oceans, and is not the cause of global warming.

Mars is heating up to the same extent as our planet. I haven't heard one good explanation for why the rest of our solar system is heating up. Could it be the giant flaming gas ball around which Earth orbits?

If you so convinced that global warming is man made, then watch this movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

[mucat]

If I remember correctly, the surface temperature range of Mars is much much larger than on Earth, so a .5C increase in temperature on Mars is not the same as a .5C increase on Earth. Also, it is difficult for me to believe we can actually compare down to .5C of the average (I assume) temperature of other planets in our systems. It is just that we live on earth, we measure the temperature on earth much much more thoroughly and detail than other planets.

Also, deforestation is known to increase local temperature. If enough deforestation going on around the world, it is not difficult to assume it will have effect (even tiny) on a global scale.

[ollinger]

A smaller increase on Mars would make sense since the Sun's radiant energy diminishes in proportion to radius (or distance from the sun) squared, and Mars is a good deal further from Sun than the earth. So if global warming were a solar system phenomenon, one wouldn't expect as big an increase in temp on mars.

[Salo]

Seriously, do think the solar warming issue has been ignored by scientists, and that you've discovered some slam dunk argument that has stumped them? I already linked to a paper refuting the claim (I'm sure it will be dismissed as biased since it comes from a university, they're all liberal, right?)

Solar warming - "A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960,[25] which would not be expected if solar activity were the main contributor to recent warming. "

The issue outside of academia has devolved into just a bunch of armchair scientists throwing propaganda at each other. Both sides are pathetic.

[Trainer]

Seriously, do think the solar warming issue has been ignored by scientists, and that you've discovered some slam dunk argument that has stumped them? I already linked to a paper refuting the claim (I'm sure it will be dismissed as biased since it comes from a university, they're all liberal, right?)

Solar warming - "A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960,[25] which would not be expected if solar activity were the main contributor to recent warming. "

The issue outside of academia has devolved into just a bunch of armchair scientists throwing propaganda at each other. Both sides are pathetic.

Thank you...

[stormholloway]

Seriously, do think the solar warming issue has been ignored by scientists, and that you've discovered some slam dunk argument that has stumped them? I already linked to a paper refuting the claim (I'm sure it will be dismissed as biased since it comes from a university, they're all liberal, right?)

Refuting the claim? Even NASA admitted that the rest of the solar system is warming.

Solar warming - "A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960,[25] which would not be expected if solar activity were the main contributor to recent warming. "

Wow. A "paper". Why is it then that increased levels of CO2 actually occurred AFTER warming occurred? That completely refutes the claim that increased CO2 has lead to warmth. It's just the opposite: warming in the oceans has led the oceans to release CO2. Yet we have Al Gore telling us CO2 levels occurred simultaneously with warming.

It's also funny that the decline in temperature occurred AFTER WWII, when industry should have been peaking. If industry is responsible for warming, then there should have been a steady increase in temperature since the industrial revolution. The fact is, that most of the recent warming took place BEFORE the industrial revolution.

The issue outside of academia has devolved into just a bunch of armchair scientists throwing propaganda at each other. Both sides are pathetic.

Watch the documentary I posted. There are plenty of scientists who think this environmental/political movement is an absolute sham. Several are even from the IPCC.

[Salo]

Refuting the claim? Even NASA admitted that the rest of the solar system is warming.

They refute the claim that solar warming is the majority cause, not that it isn't happening. "...the sun could have roughly contributed 35–60% and 20–40% of the 1900–2000 and 1980–2000 global warming, respectively." Did you read it?

Wow. A "paper".

See, how can any progress be made when hard science is dismissed so casually? You have your viewpoint, and anything that doesn't fit will be instantly rejected. This is exactly what my rant was about, and both sides are guilty of this.

Your other points about CO2 aren't relevant, since I made no other claims about the warming cause.

[stormholloway]

What paper? All I see are your quotes from it.

[Salo]

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf

[Trainer]

Salo, unfortunately, you may as well be banging your head against a wall. It literally doesn't matter what you say to him, there is no way you can change his mind.

[stormholloway]

Convenient conclusions made here.

Our warming is the result of our industry, but the rest of the solar system's warming is the result of the sun.

There is a wealth of data showing a significant amount of warming coming from our warmer oceans, due to massive undersea volcanic activity.

The models this guy uses to make these determinations about "how" increased solar output would warm our Earth are completely theoretical.

I'm not about to extrapolate the mathematical formulas in that paper. So if your plan is to hit me with a barrage of equations to shut me up, it won't work.

Mars is further away from the sun than we are and is warming comparably. If industry is mostly responsible for warming, there would not have been a roughly 30 year cooling period in the middle of our industrial age. What about all the warming that preceded the industrial revolution? Surely you can't blame that on greenhouse gases.

[Salo]

Our warming is the result of our industry, but the rest of the solar system's warming is the result of the sun.

That's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the sun can't be responsible for all of the warming, but is most likely responsible for a pretty decent portion of it. This is demonstrating the problematic all or nothing attitude. The sun is doing something, therefore industry must be doing nothing.

I don't even care what portion of the warming CO2 has contributed anymore. The fact is that the Earth is an extremely complex set of feedback mechanisms, and we're toying with it. We're performing a giant global experiment, and the best case scenario is nothing too bad happens. Looking at the worst case, I'd like to stop the experiment.

The fact is the "kill the economy" alarmists are just as bad the environmental extremists. There are pragmatic solutions to these problems. Technological inovation and advancement is good, so real or not this threat will hopefully be good market driver in an area with an incredible amount of incentive to keep the status quo.

[Salo]

Salo, unfortunately, you may as well be banging your head against a wall. It literally doesn't matter what you say to him, there is no way you can change his mind.

heh, I promised myself a long time ago to never argue on the internet, but I guess boredom got the best of me.

[mucat]

A smaller increase on Mars would make sense since the Sun's radiant energy diminishes in proportion to radius (or distance from the sun) squared, and Mars is a good deal further from Sun than the earth. So if global warming were a solar system phenomenon, one wouldn't expect as big an increase in temp on mars.

However, Pluto has almost 2C increase over the past 14 years and Pluto is a lot further from the sun. So the theory of global warming causing only (or mostly) by our Sun doesn't not add up.

[stormholloway]

That's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the sun can't be responsible for all of the warming, but is most likely responsible for a pretty decent portion of it. This is demonstrating the problematic all or nothing attitude. The sun is doing something, therefore industry must be doing nothing.

I don't adhere to the all or nothing attitude. Everything in our environment has an effect. What is being debated are the extents to each effect. I simply don't agree with the conclusion that the sun is only responsible for 25% of the warming or so that has occurred in the last 30 years.

I don't even care what portion of the warming CO2 has contributed anymore. The fact is that the Earth is an extremely complex set of feedback mechanisms, and we're toying with it. We're performing a giant global experiment, and the best case scenario is nothing too bad happens. Looking at the worst case, I'd like to stop the experiment.

But the prevailing theory is that humans are responsible for the warming taking place, and this simply isn't true. Many scientists estimate 2-3% of the warming is due to human activity. That's probably as much as cows.

The fact is the "kill the economy" alarmists are just as bad the environmental extremists. There are pragmatic solutions to these problems. Technological inovation and advancement is good, so real or not this threat will hopefully be good market driver in an area with an incredible amount of incentive to keep the status quo.

The bottom line is that the result of all of this madness will be carbon taxes, car mileage surveillance and a slew of other anti-liberty policies that will be implemented in the name of this political (not environmental) movement.

[Trainer]

But the prevailing theory is that humans are responsible for the warming taking place, and this simply isn't true. Many scientists estimate 2-3% of the warming is due to human activity. That's probably as much as cows.

Many many more scientists think that it isn't. Conveniently, you pick the ones that suit your fancy...

The bottom line is that the result of all of this madness will be carbon taxes, car mileage surveillance and a slew of other anti-liberty policies that will be implemented in the name of this political (not environmental) movement.

Ummm, so, your assertion is that people want to have car mileage limitations and carbon limitations for the sake of taking away our liberty, NOT for the environment?

That's beyond absurd.

[stormholloway]

Many many more scientists think that it isn't. Conveniently, you pick the ones that suit your fancy...

Of course more scientists have jumped on this bandwagon. Tens of thousands of jobs rely on manmade global warming. These days, if you want funding, you have to go along with the prevailing theory.

Luckily, the truth doesn't rely on the quantity of scientists who believe in it. The bottom line is that from 1940-1975, when CO2 emissions were skyrocketing, the temperature went down. Up until 1940, when CO2 emissions were relatively low, our temperature increased. This simply doesn't make sense under this commonly held theory.

Ummm, so, your assertion is that people want to have car mileage limitations and carbon limitations for the sake of taking away our liberty, NOT for the environment?

That's beyond absurd.

Did I say that? I'm not sure you've got the right guy. Taxes are for revenue. That's pretty simple. The carbon tax isn't theoretical. It's real.

[stormholloway]

If anyone's truly interested in the OTHER side of this story, watch this documentary:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

Many of those interviewed are scientists on the IPCC.

[Steady Eddy]

Ummm, so, your assertion is that people want to have car mileage limitations and carbon limitations for the sake of taking away our liberty, NOT for the environment?

That's beyond absurd.

That would be absurd, but people are entirely capable of being absurd. Way back in the 60's these people came along who were upset about the success of the industrial revolution. They were mad about longer life spans, no more polio, reduced infant mortality, the increase of leisure time; all these things were bad according to them. (BTW, since this is a tennis site, think about this, tennis used to be only for the richest 100 years ago. Now most people can afford things like tennis).

They said that we should go "back-to-nature". They insisted that we'd be happier if we lived in caves, or tee-pees. Now if they chose to live in a commune, that's ok, but they want to force everybody onto some type of commune. (Look up the Khmer Rogue in Cambodia of the 80's) Some of the pretexts they've used to scare people in the past have been: DDT, food additives, nuclear power, top soil erosion, air pollution, and over population to name a few. By the time one gets debunked they've moved onto another. The solution, though, is always the same; we must give up our affluent lifestyle, give up our national defense and live like indigenous people. If they're ever successful, and we destroy what we've built, can we as easily undo the move? Or is it impossible that these people, (teachers, professors, journalists, people in the entertainment idustry), could ever be wrong?

[stormholloway]

With all of the absurdity that envelopes our country and our world, is more absurdity that uncharacteristic?

To me, it's absolutely part of a pattern of progressive absurdity.

[alwaysatnet]

"My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA’s Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide [McIntyre ]with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

[McIntyre] notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an “oversight” that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again– maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media."

OOOOPS... a report from Daily Tech. NASA quietly retracts some data that seemingly wasn't exactly correct. What will the global warming diehards say now?
Probably they will just quietly hope this never makes the media radar screens.
Thanks to outlets like Newsweek and the NY Times it probably won't. Another argument shot down.