snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » Soapbox Derby » Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 


--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 302 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
Um...the problem with this notion is that it requires all not-city temperatures to be *dropping*, in order to compensate for the rise in temperatures in cities.

Do you have evidence that farmlands and fields and forests are getting cooler?

No, no no, you don't get it. If the whole world was becoming a large city, yes, that would be the problem. However, that is NOT what is going on. The cities are NOT getting hotter. The country is NOT getting colder. Cities are just warmer than the country. They always have been (more or less). It is just the T measurements are (more or less) moving from rural locations to city locations (the cities are growing, but not taking over the world, just the locations with T measurements.

quote:
Another problem with your notion: temperatures aren't only sensed by fixed land-locations. We also have a great deal of satellite data, using IR sensors, showing the motion of large plumes of warm water in the seas.

No more than usual. Also, those sat datasets are what Christy has based his work on.

quote:
I am afraid that you have latched on to one interpretation, but that you are letting it blind you to a *LOT* of other sources of data, all of which support the measurements you consider anomalous.

No, the religion of rapid global warming has blinded many to the data that is actually out there.

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 302 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Il-Mari:
And please answer this simple yes or no question - has Christy significantly changed his view on global climate change in the past ten years?

Sigh. Here is where the religion part comes in (i.e., YOUR religion of rapid global warming). His “views” haven't changed. The interpretation and calibration of the data has improved over the years. That is what scientists do. If new evidence comes around, they see if it affects their results. If so, they publish that fact. His results have gone from "slight global cooling” to “no change” to “slight global warming”. However, it STILL does not show RAPID global warming. More along the rate that has been seen in the geological past. Still no evidence of a man-made rapid warming.

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 302 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Il-Mari:
What a nuanced rebuttal - pray tell what about that and the other article I posted is incorrect?

I don't know, but to even attempt to use an unregulated article like Wiki is just plain sloppy.

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 98 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
While link author Sami Solanki avoids making himself a parish among scientists in his last paragraph,

Just a point of order, I think the word you were looking for was pariah.

Yes, spell checkers can be your enema... [fish]

Note: I had to fix my spelling TWICE on this "spelling correction" post. Dang Murphy....

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug4.7:
No, the religion of rapid global warming has blinded many to the data that is actually out there.

You are going too far, I fear. There is enough data in favor of the man-causes-warming hypothesis so that a fair minded person can accept it (just as a fair-minded person can say the evidence is too weak to justify economic upheaval).

Where I think the global warming hypothesis is weakest is on the economic side. Proponents need to show that reasonably possible remediation measures would actually be cost-effective -- taking into consideration the enormous potential economic benefits of global warming, such as opening of much of Canada and Siberia to agriculture. Instead they just focus on the science, which is only the beginning of the story.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Besides, it is all an academic exercise anyway, “peak oil” will destroy our economy by 2020 anyway.... [Big Grin]

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 206 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
There is enough data in favor of the man-causes-warming hypothesis so that a fair minded person can accept it (just as a fair-minded person can say the evidence is too weak to justify economic upheaval).

I would disagree. There is strong evidence for SOME effect. There is NOT evidence for a rapid T increase caused by man.

The evidence does support that we are making modifications, but it is those d*&n unstable climate models that "predict" a rapid T increase. Of course, those models show rapid increases OR rapid DEcreases depending on how you tweak them.

Reading tea leaves is as accurate....

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PeterK
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PeterK   E-mail PeterK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by YudanTaiteki:
My comparisons with the Evolution debate were not haphazard because it's the same type of thing happening. Honestly, Joe Bentley's response reads like hundreds of similar posts I've seen against Evolution on Christian message boards.

I think at a basic level, people are offended by the conclusions on global warming because they ask us to change our lifestyle.

Amusingly ironic. Because the aggressively proselytising global-warming alarmists remind me of nothing so much as the proselytising of anti-evolution evangelical Christians. BOTH groups demand that we radically change our lifestyles but fail to give us adequate rational evidence why we should do so.

I don't dispute we should cut down unnecessary use of fossil fuels etc (and I do), I just object to the alarmism (the subject of this thread) spread by politicians and their media cheerleaders who demand that we worry ourselves to death about a "problem" we wouldn't even know about if the thermometer hadn't been invented. (And btw it's not only Leftist policians who spread this alarmism for political purposes. Our Right-wing govt in Australia is using it to argue we should use nuclear power [which the Left opposes] instead of our abundant coal.)

Every local warm spell, cold spell, dry spell or wet spell, is promoted as "proof" of anthropogenic "climate change". (Irrationally, every purported change will be for the worse. Apparently there will not be a single place on Earth which will have a more equable climate as a result of the projected global changes. [Roll Eyes] )

This thread has taken the usual course that any attempt at rational discussion of the subject is met with the catch-all objection "But virtually all scientists agree!"

What exactly do they agree on, in layman's terms?
Is the world's average temp getting warmer? Almost certainly.
Is human activity causing this? Probably/possibly.
How much is average temp likely to increase? Probably no more than a degree or two.
Will this cause massive melting of icecaps, flood vast areas, make millions dead or homeless? No.
Will complying with the Kyoto Protocol make any difference except make us feel better? Almost certainly not.

So rather than lose sleep over this, let's combat the human problems which we KNOW are real and preventable.

Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PeterK
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PeterK   E-mail PeterK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
edit: "BOTH groups demand that we radically change our lifestyles to avoid a terrible retribution, but fail to give us adequate rational evidence why we should do so."
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trollface:
Surely the issue isn't whether the planet has been hotter, but whether it has while human life has been around.

After all, just because the planet isn't going anywhere doesn't mean that we aren't.

More importantly, it has never been warmer during our experiment with feeding 6.5 billion people.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
Where I think the global warming hypothesis is weakest is on the economic side. Proponents need to show that reasonably possible remediation measures would actually be cost-effective -- taking into consideration the enormous potential economic benefits of global warming, such as opening of much of Canada and Siberia to agriculture. Instead they just focus on the science, which is only the beginning of the story.

The thinking, I suppose, is that people will care enough about the human race as a whole to be able to look beyond their back yard and actually give a toss about other people. Naive, maybe, but that's what I suppose the thinking is.

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
christmas tree kitapper
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for christmas tree kitapper     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:


Where I think the global warming hypothesis is weakest is on the economic side. Proponents need to show that reasonably possible remediation measures would actually be cost-effective -- taking into consideration the enormous potential economic benefits of global warming, such as opening of much of Canada and Siberia to agriculture. Instead they just focus on the science, which is only the beginning of the story.

But if you look there *are* people out there talking about the economic costs of global warming; I went to a talk here at the U of A on that subject just the other week. The professor giving it was either in the economics department or the business school.

Me, I like what Roger Ebert said about "An Inconvient Truth": What I fail to understand is why global warming should be a liberal or conservative issue.

--------------------
"I have never in my life been more disappointed by a politician I voted for than I have been with George Bush. He is a total liberal."- overheard by me on the shuttle to the U of A game on Nov. 11th.

Posts: 3878 | From: Tucson, AZ | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jonny T
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jonny T   Author's Homepage   E-mail Jonny T   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
PeterK:
What exactly do they agree on, in layman's terms?
Is the world's average temp getting warmer? Almost certainly.
Is human activity causing this? Probably/possibly.
How much is average temp likely to increase? Probably no more than a degree or two.
Will this cause massive melting of icecaps, flood vast areas, make millions dead or homeless? No.

Will complying with the Kyoto Protocol make any difference except make us feel better? Almost certainly not.

I'm curious as to your basis for these two.

--------------------
Hello, I love you - won't you tell me your name?
Hello! I'm good for nothing - will you love me just the same?

Greetings from the dark side...

Posts: 2731 | From: York/Reading, England | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm more curious as to how he got to this:
quote:
Will complying with the Kyoto Protocol make any difference except make us feel better? Almost certainly not.
If it is probable/possible that humans are causing the warming, then wouldn't any reduction in CO2 make a differenct?

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug4.7:
. . . Cities are just warmer than the country. . . .

Right... And we've got a lot more of them than we did 500 years ago. They're gigantic. So...

Aren't you arguing, then, that we are causing global warming, by building these enormous heat-sinks? Unless the countryside is cooling off, then there must be global warming because of city-building, right?

I'm not being sarcastic or snarky; I'm suggesting that your reasoning, while not invalid, is just a bit too simplistic for the actual case.

Climatologists are, after all, aware of these fundamental facts, and are capable of correcting for them. It's as if you had gone to Edwin Hubble and said, "You didn't take into account the aberration of starlight due to earth's orbital motion." He'd have said, "Yes, actually I did."

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 203 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug4.7:
. . . Cities are just warmer than the country. . . .

Right... And we've got a lot more of them than we did 500 years ago. They're gigantic. So...

Aren't you arguing, then, that we are causing global warming, by building these enormous heat-sinks? Unless the countryside is cooling off, then there must be global warming because of city-building, right?

I'm not being sarcastic or snarky; I'm suggesting that your reasoning, while not invalid, is just a bit too simplistic for the actual case.

Climatologists are, after all, aware of these fundamental facts, and are capable of correcting for them. It's as if you had gone to Edwin Hubble and said, "You didn't take into account the aberration of starlight due to earth's orbital motion." He'd have said, "Yes, actually I did."

First off they try to take into account the warming of the locations around the sensors. The debate is how well they do it. That is also the focus of the debate on the Christy sat data. The problem is the sat instruments are aging and as they do, their calibrations change. The debate is over how much the calibration has changed.

Second, cities have grown HUGE, but compared to the vast majority of the world that is NOT city, the fraction of the world that is covered with cities is not THAT much greater. For example (numbers pulled out of the air because I don't want to go look them up, but please let me finish), if in 1800 0.1% of the world was covered in cities and the size of cities since then increased by an order of magnitude to 1% (way too much I think), it is still only a small fraction of the land mass. Add in the oceans (and their fantastic ability to absorb heat) and the extra cities really don't add that much to the "global" temperature.

In fact, one of the articles cited in this thread wrote that their predictions of the T increase over the past X years was off because they did not account for the ocean's ability to absorb heat. Now the article added the sensationalistic line of, "But at some point, the oceans will no longer be able to absorb that much heat, and the temperature will soar...". Yea, that will happen when the oceans get near boiling.

Again, I am not saying that global T is not going up. I am just saying the rate is NOT "catastrophic", and not proven to be man-caused. The records show that in geologic time, it has been much colder AND much hotter than it is now. Those swings seem to be about as "fast" as the current trends indicate. The only thing showing a "rapid" increase are the climate models (and those are so unstable as is that I would not trust them at all, too many free parameters).

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PeterK
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PeterK   E-mail PeterK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonny T:
quote:
PeterK:
What exactly do they agree on, in layman's terms?
Is the world's average temp getting warmer? Almost certainly.
Is human activity causing this? Probably/possibly.
How much is average temp likely to increase? Probably no more than a degree or two.
Will this cause massive melting of icecaps, flood vast areas, make millions dead or homeless? No.

Will complying with the Kyoto Protocol make any difference except make us feel better? Almost certainly not.

I'm curious as to your basis for these two.
It's not "my" basis, it's eg the UN's estimates quoted above.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PeterK
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PeterK   E-mail PeterK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
I'm more curious as to how he got to this:
quote:
Will complying with the Kyoto Protocol make any difference except make us feel better? Almost certainly not.
If it is probable/possible that humans are causing the warming, then wouldn't any reduction in CO2 make a differenct?
You're assuming that compliance with Kyoto will reduce CO2 output. It almost certainly won't. The figures committed to were drawn up for political purposes to match what would have happened anyway with or without the treaty. The post-industrialising countries (Europe etc.)can easily meet their slightly reduced CO2-output commitment by closing down the rustbelt industries which had already become unprofitable anyway for other reasons. And "developing" countries are allowed unlimited INCREASES in CO2 output. The only countries asked to take a hit from Kyoto are the few industrialised countries (eg USA & Australia) which also have huge mineral resources, undeveloped areas etc which will require increased CO2 output to develop.

You're also assuming that human activity makes a net difference to the CO2 level in the atmosphere, overcoming the natural feedback mechanisms which keep it steady. This itself is very debatable.

Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If the Kyoto treaty was drawn up to accomplish nothing that wasn't going to happen already, then what possible reason could the US have for not signing it?

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PeterK
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PeterK   E-mail PeterK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Read my third-last sentence again trollface. And don't put words in my mouth.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So your third sentence is inaccurate? "The figures committed to were drawn up for political purposes to match what would have happened anyway with or without the treaty." is not what you meant to say?

So, how do you figure that countries reducing their CO2 output ("taking a hit") wouldn't help to reduce the amount of CO2 output globally? Is it your contention that the developing countries would equal and surpass the "hit" taken within the same timeframe?

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
Where I think the global warming hypothesis is weakest is on the economic side. Proponents need to show that reasonably possible remediation measures would actually be cost-effective -- taking into consideration the enormous potential economic benefits of global warming, such as opening of much of Canada and Siberia to agriculture. Instead they just focus on the science, which is only the beginning of the story.

In general, I agree with you here, Steve. But, as has been pointed out, many people are now looking very carefully at this. Of course, those who have come to the careful conclusion that doing nothing will probably be the most expensive solution are now being called "alarmists" but we expect that.
quote:
P.S. While link author Sami Solanki avoids making himself a parish among scientists in his last paragraph, the endorsement of global warming orthodoxy there is arguably inconsistent with the evidence previously presented. If you look at Diagram 11, there is at least one other 20 year period (1890-1910) which deviates approximately as much as does the present. Arbitrarily separating out the last twenty years from the 150 year timelime is just that -- arbitrary -- and should probably be ignored.
Perhaps, as the person who wrote the paper you decided to quote, he had a very good reason to consider the last 23 (not 20) years separately. Not that I think his paper should be beyond your criticism but in previous discussions about science you seem to have been willing to accept such extrapolations (and I hestitate to add this but it seem you do so only when they match your own point). Anyway, looking at the same Figure 11, I can't understand at all how you see the same amount of deviation for any previous period. It's pretty clear to me that the current deviation is much larger and I think that's why he wrote the last paragraph, which says:
quote:
After 1980, however, the Earth’s temperature exhibits a remarkably steep rise, while the Sun’s irradiance displays at the most a weak secular trend. Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase, with man-made greenhouse gases being the likely dominant alternative.
I think his data fully supports that conclusion.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
Depending on the timing and speed of the rising waters, the first world countries could face food shortages as port cities are shut down.


Climate change causes winners and losers, and climate change does happen. But surely, on average, higher temperatures mean more arable land and more food.

Are you aware that the Italian coastline [url=http://tinyurl.com/yx4yxz]has moved around by many miles? The Mississippi River moves as well. The whole Eastern seaboard of the US, and Gulf Coast, is subject to hurricanes which will eventually sweep away most current beachfront properties.

quote:
Also (it sounds callous, but may be true) third world countries already face things of that nature now. They are "used to" things like that. First world countries are not and might be more likely to panic/riot/etc if such things become possible.

Panic because Atlantic City casinos are swamped? Or because overpriced beachfront properties are no more (or have their views obscured by seawalls)? Do riots occur in LA when those expensive houses go bye-bye in landslides?

I do think that rising seas would be a misfortune for Bangladesh (assuming it is still a poor country in 2100), but the idea of rich waterfront householders rioting is far fetched.

quote:
Moving NYC would be years of shutdown. Both La Guardia and JFK are on the ocean. If those airports were shutdown due to flodding, it would be a major catastrophe for the economics of the region.
There was an article in the New York Times a few years back on what happens if JFK gets a direct high tide category 4 hurricane hit. Not too much left. In any event, rising waters, whether from a thousand-year storm or gradually rising water, can be addressed with seawalls, carbon sequestration, or radical change to lower energy live-near-home lifestyles. With seawalls, we have a better idea as to whether the proposed remedy will work than we do with the others.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 98 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
Panic because Atlantic City casinos are swamped?

My parents would sure panic if that happened.
quote:
Or because overpriced beachfront properties are no more (or have their views obscured by seawalls)?

Right now, there are not exactly riots, but my BIL can't go to the Gulf because his agency refused to repair a "highway" that was on a sandbar (called Dauphin Island). They basically threatened to shoot him if he comes back.

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PeterK
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PeterK   E-mail PeterK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trollface:
So your third sentence is inaccurate? "The figures committed to were drawn up for political purposes to match what would have happened anyway with or without the treaty." is not what you meant to say?

It's exactly what I "meant" to say. Use your obviously considerable talent to compare it with your "the Kyoto treaty was drawn up to accomplish nothing that wasn't going to happen already". Pardon the pun but you're skating on thin ice.
quote:

So, how do you figure that countries reducing their CO2 output ("taking a hit") wouldn't help to reduce the amount of CO2 output globally? Is it your contention that the developing countries would equal and surpass the "hit" taken within the same timeframe?

China alone would vastly surpass it.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm...ah, the hell with it. I know jack sheet about this, and it's been more fun to sit back and watch. Carry on...

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 302 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is another "great" article...
quote:
The world's oceans may rise up to 140 cms (4 ft 7 in) by 2100 due to global warming, a faster than expected increase that could threaten low-lying coasts from Florida to Bangladesh, a researcher said on Thursday...."The computer models underestimate the sea level rise that has already occurred,"...Sea level changes hinge on poorly understood factors such as the pace of the melt of glaciers and of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica..."My main conclusion is not that my forecast is better..."There are aspects of the physics we don't understand very well."
article . Here is my summary, "We don't know much, but if we really speculate, things could get really bad... Or not.

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
Not that I think his paper should be beyond your criticism but in previous discussions about science you seem to have been willing to accept such extrapolations (and I hestitate to add this but it seem you do so only when they match your own point).


One reason for hesitating could be that asking for more evidence for what you don't want to believe is an almost universal facet of, if not human nature, than certainly of the Soapbox Derby. This has nothing to do with whether I was right or not.

quote:
Anyway, looking at the same Figure 11, I can't understand at all how you see the same amount of deviation for any previous period. It's pretty clear to me that the current deviation is much larger . . .
This does have something to do with whether I was right. On a second look I agree with you that the recent period is quite different, and that this is consistent with the man-causes-global-warming hypothesis/theory.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PeterK
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PeterK   E-mail PeterK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug4.7:
Here is another "great" article... [QUOTE]The world's oceans may rise up to 140 cms (4 ft 7 in) by 2100 due to global warming,

140 cm? that's nothin'! The Sydney Morning Herald (which likes to pride itself on being the nation's most sober journal of record) a couple of months ago had a front page lead story (sorry I can't link to the article because I don't subscribe to the archive) about how "scientists tell us" that sea levels will rise up to 1000 metres (yes, that's 3,300 feet) complete with graphic maps showing Australia reduced to a few groups of smallish islands. The "best" bit was its awestruck reportage that the scientists had compiled this image "using satellites" (So it must be true right? [Roll Eyes] ) Apparently it didn't occur to them that a kindy kid with a blue crayon could produce the same image if you told him to colour in all the bits below 1000 m above sea level on the map of Aus.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 98 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PeterK:
140 cm? that's nothin'! The Sydney Morning Herald (which likes to pride itself on being the nation's most sober journal of record) a couple of months ago had a front page lead story (sorry I can't link to the article because I don't subscribe to the archive) about how "scientists tell us" that sea levels will rise up to 1000 metres (yes, that's 3,300 feet) complete with graphic maps showing Australia reduced to a few groups of smallish islands. The "best" bit was its awestruck reportage that the scientists had compiled this image "using satellites" (So it must be true right? [Roll Eyes] ) Apparently it didn't occur to them that a kindy kid with a blue crayon could produce the same image if you told him to colour in all the bits below 1000 m above sea level on the map of Aus.

[lol] Looks like someone at "your" paper got a copy of a GIS program. I have one also and can print out really nice maps of the world with sea levels at any point I want. It's cool to make an animation that looks a lot like the Waterworld beginning... [Roll Eyes]

Again, I am not saying "no" to global change. In fact, there are a bunch of folks (and a lot of my friends & co-workers) arguing the specifics this week in San Francisco at the AGU meeting. I didn't go this year because I went last year AND I am attempting to save up my travel money for an international conference in China (ICAE 2007).

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Open Mike Night
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 200 posted      Profile for Open Mike Night     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
However you happen to feel about Global warming, don't call Michael Chrichton's views into question.

quote:
This March, Michael Crowley wrote a cover story (sub. req.) in The New Republic hitting blockbuster novelist Michael Crichton's very public denials that global warming was a proved phenomenon.

That was the last he'd heard from Crichton until he picked his latest novel, Next. Here's what he found:

Alex Burnet was in the middle of the most difficult trial of her career, a rape case involving the sexual assault of a two-year-old boy in Malibu. The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers. Crowley was a wealthy, spoiled Yale graduate and heir to a pharmaceutical fortune. ...



--------------------
On the crusade to eliminate Moral Asshattery wherever it exists
Member: AAMAH

Posts: 2940 | From: Michigan | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PeterK:
You're also assuming that human activity makes a net difference to the CO2 level in the atmosphere, overcoming the natural feedback mechanisms which keep it steady. This itself is very debatable.

You're the one that said:
quote:
Is the world's average temp getting warmer? Almost certainly.
Is human activity causing this? Probably/possibly.

In a thread talking about how CO2 production is causing global warming. While you might be talking about human activity causing methane leading to global warming, you might have notified us of the switch from topic.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 98 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Open Mike Night:
However you happen to feel about Global warming, don't call Michael Chrichton's views into question.

Okay, the best line from the article you quoted was this:
quote:
In lieu of a letter to the editor, Crichton had fictionalized me as a child rapist. And, perhaps worse, falsely branded me a pharmaceutical-industry profiteer.
Between that and the line about the size of the rapists "member"... [lol]

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PeterK
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PeterK   E-mail PeterK   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
quote:
Originally posted by PeterK:
You're also assuming that human activity makes a net difference to the CO2 level in the atmosphere, overcoming the natural feedback mechanisms which keep it steady. This itself is very debatable.

You're the one that said:
quote:
Is the world's average temp getting warmer? Almost certainly.
Is human activity causing this? Probably/possibly.

In a thread talking about how CO2 production is causing global warming. While you might be talking about human activity causing methane leading to global warming, you might have notified us of the switch from topic.
You seem to think "probably/possibly" and "debatable" are mutually exclusive. They're not. They're more like synonyms than antonyms.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2