Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Conflicting Science in Global Warming/Cooling
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 16, 2012 at 5:38 pm #746416
WorldCitizenParticipanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And to bring the topic back around to the OP’s Global Warming thoughts, the above Wiki article addresses “Modern Flat-Earthers”. These are people, that relatively recently believe and use “Science” to show the earth is indeed flat.
Is it safe to say the Global warming “deniers” are cut from the same cloth?
P.S. I use the term “Deniers” and not “Skeptics” as skeptics denote someone who seems adhere to some sort of valid scientific rigor when formulating their hypothesis.
February 16, 2012 at 6:01 pm #746417
kootchmanMemberYep… and how far back ya wanna go WorldCitizen… how about a mere thirty years when … it was global cooling that was the rage of the left. That was a much dogma as global warming is today. .. and the very same arguments were used… and the same “we are right, and science backs us”… you DO remember global cooling? And the same “flat earth” derisions were used. There IS conflicting science and trying to convert science to ideology is the current status. Global cooling was debunked, global warming similarly, so now we have “Climate Change”… The science is not settled. Far from it.
February 16, 2012 at 6:08 pm #746418
kootchmanMemberWell Jan… your fixation with priest abuses…pops up everywhere…does not mean I am dismissive or not cognizant … doesn’t mean I am obligated to preface any subject with it either. “I like Zippy burgers and some priests were pedophiles” Your axe, you grind it. There is no shortage of pedophiles,, anywhere, including right here in WS…
February 16, 2012 at 6:33 pm #746419
WorldCitizenParticipantThe most general definition of climate change is a change in the statistical properties of the climate system when considered over long periods of time, regardless of cause. Accordingly, fluctuations over periods shorter than a few decades, such as El Niño, do not represent climate change.
The term sometimes is used to refer specifically to climate change caused by human activity, as opposed to changes in climate that may have resulted as part of Earth’s natural processes. In this sense, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming. Within scientific journals, global warming refers to surface temperature increases while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas levels will affect.
February 16, 2012 at 6:40 pm #746420
WorldCitizenParticipantAlso, here’s a great video from a series to give some intelligent answers to the bigest questions about climate change and one aspect of it, global warming.
and this segment which more directly deals with your global cooling comments:
Totally fabricated “scientific consensus” .
February 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm #746421
WorldCitizenParticipantDon’t be an under-informed talking-point mouthpiece. It does no one any good…except to act as a cautionary example for the rest of us.
February 16, 2012 at 7:48 pm #746422
AlkiRagdollParticipantI’ve stayed away from posting for a while due to the tone of the forums… however, I just cant believe the ignorance on this topic. I am presently under contract to a Congressionally supported internationally recognized research organization for research on Climate Change and air pollution. Kootch and others – I believe you are not reading the true science, but being swayed by the sound bites (from both side). I dont expect your mind to be swayed by my comments.
I hate the term global warming, because it does not appropriately capture what is happening. However, I believe climate change is happening. Yes, naturally we see changes – there are natural climate swings. However, there is no doubt among the substantial majority of scientists that anthropogenic (human) activities are altering what nature would normally produce. True scientists have moved beyond this question. Unfortunately, there is no convincing those who just dont want to alter their actions – those who cant and wont deal with change. My personal belief is that while we must reduce greenhouse gases, its not happening for political reasons. Mankind now needs to prepare to adapt to the climate that we have facilitated. Its happening (some naturally and some caused by our messing in our own sandbox). What does that mean? Well it means we better figure out what its going to take to protect society. Many agencies are doing just that (its called climate action planning and adaptation). Fortunately, there is a limited supply to conventional fossil fuels. At the rate we are burning them, you can anticipate costs to increase. This year we will see record prices and in a decade or two, you can guarantee that vehicles burning gas/diesel will be beyond the affordability for a much larger segement of society – regardless of climate change. You can expect your insurance costs to rise dramatically (property and medical). Eratic weather and many other effects will become our norm. Could we have altered this course? Yes. Unfortunately, we did not act soon enough to have a material influence.
February 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm #746423
JanSParticipantlook, Kootchman..this is the first and only time I have ever, EVER brought up abuse by priests in a thread.. If you can show me otherwise, please do. Otherwise, do not make accusations of which you have no proof.
Thank you…have a good day. Bully on..
back to the original topic. I apologize to everyone for my part in getting off-topic..
February 17, 2012 at 12:58 am #746424
miwsParticipantThanks, AlkiRagdoll. I, too, hate the term “Global Warming”, and I think I am a bit more peeved when Climate Change believers use the term than the deniers. It give the deniers more ammo, for want of a better way to describe it, for their argument.
I also think it’s ironic, that many of those of the belief that Obama is saddling “our grandchildren” with our debt, don’t seem to give a rat’s if we saddle them with a toxic Earth.
Mike
February 17, 2012 at 1:55 am #746425
kootchmanMemberIt’s still conflicted even NAS has stated computer modeling is not sufficient to draw conclusions and the variability in data and correlation is not conclusive. It’s too complex to model. But, it’s become religion for some. Worship on. MIWS there is no more carbon on this earth then there was one million years ago…it’s a closed system. Barring cosmological intrusions …. in the history of the world is a modest “green house gas” period. The only “reputable” scientists ( I love how lefties do that! as if any other PhD is not reputable if they disagree) You can find as many PhD’s that scoff at the methods and the conclusions of Michael Moore Canned off the Shelf Science.
” According to Dr. Kenneth Green, Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Steven Schroeder, “politicians clearly do not realize that the major conclusions of the IPCC’s reports are not based on hard evidence and observation but rather largely upon the output of assumption-driven climate models.â€
That means… when ya load to the data ro confirm the thesis…ya get the answer you want. Sorta like what the congress does when it marks up a spending bill…. the CBO is told to “assume” facts not in evidence, to draw a conclusion as wanted by the submitter. JIJO
February 17, 2012 at 3:54 am #746426
WorldCitizenParticipantTake a few minutes out of your time to watch the videos in post #80. There’s a whole series (I think 10 or so total). It covers all of what you’re talking about in greater detail than I have the time or space to do here.
Seriously, do it
Don’t come on to public forums, claiming to know the facts and spew the same garbage time and time again without knowing the facts.
Who ever said Michael Moore’s science is credible? Certainly not me. That doesn’t mean the sources you are quoting are. Please watch. Enlighten yourself. Please. For all of us.
February 17, 2012 at 5:11 am #746427
redblackParticipantIt’s still conflicted even NAS has stated computer modeling is not sufficient to
blh blah blah blah blah
look. i asked you this before:
should we allow industry to pollute with impunity?
forget the man-made global climate change argument for a minute.
should our fellow “corporate citizens” be allowed to dump whatever they see fit into public air and water? should they be allowed to fight any regulation that attempts to curtail them from doing so?
if so, do your kids and grandkids have any legal recourse when they develop resultant cancers and respiratory illnesses?
or is that just more tough love from compassionate conservatives?
“suck it up, kid. this is america. without those pollutants, your dad wouldn’t have a job.”
February 17, 2012 at 7:46 am #746428
JanSParticipantwell, Kman..you would know something about “assming facts not in evidence”, now, wouldn’t you?
February 17, 2012 at 1:48 pm #746429
redblackParticipantby the way, doesn’t anyone remember aerosol sprays and chlorofluorocarbons? that big hole in the ozone wasn’t a natural part of the earth’s rhythm.
it was man-made, and it affected the climate.
February 17, 2012 at 4:24 pm #746430
KenParticipantThe persecution of ecological sciences is religious based as far as I can tell. The persecution of science in general certainly is.
The crazier themes from Dominionism have been creeping into mainstream religions for decades and this book (the largest selling home school history textbook in english) is one of the many methods used
http://www.amazon.com/Providential-Including-Principles-Education-Government/dp/1887456007
From Comment in a review of America’s Providential History by Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell.
The Bush administration and members of the Religious Right in Congress have waged a virtual war on the environment since taking office. Bush has packed the Environmental Protection Agency with industry lobbyists; the Texas GOP Platform calls for abolishing the agency.
Beliles and McDowell explain that a Christian’s primary responsibility is to create material wealth and God will increase natural resources accordingly. Secular society, which views natural resources as limited, “lack(s) faith in God’s providence and consequently, men will find fewer resources… The Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God’s earth.” (197)
Given this view of natural resources as infinitely renewable, it is not surprising that the top ranking leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, all who support a Religious Right agenda, have 100% ratings from Christian Coalition and 0-8% from the environmental League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental groups.
With unlimited natural resources, there is no such thing as overpopulation.
This belief in God’s ever-expanding base of natural resources explains the Bush administration’s willingness to plunder the environment and oppose funding for international family planning where abortions might be performed.
I have a copy of this book if anyone doubts the veracity of quotes.
More detail on this site: http://www.theocracywatch.org/rr_economics.htm
February 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm #746431
KenParticipantNote: I don’t comment in many of the wingnut political threads anymore, mainly because I block Kootchman and no longer see his repetitious nonsense. I don’t even see these threads when he is the last poster.
February 17, 2012 at 4:32 pm #746432
anonymeParticipantLoaves and fishes. Seen much of that lately?
Oil companies have been buying up water rights worldwide for some time now. I don’t think they believe in infinite water resources – or water resources from the ‘Infinite’. They’re investing in a certain and inevitable future crisis.
February 17, 2012 at 4:32 pm #746433
WorldCitizenParticipantKootchman Wrote:
” According to Dr. Kenneth Green, Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Steven Schroeder, “politicians clearly do not realize that the major conclusions of the IPCC’s reports are not based on hard evidence and observation but rather largely upon the output of assumption-driven climate models.â€
This was pulled from a 2003 NeoConservative think tank policy machine called AEI or American Enterprises Institute. It was also used by Rep. Inhofe during testimony of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Funny thing is, even these PhDs, who admitted the paper was used to, according to Green, “…downplay the issue [the IPCC report] for Canada’s right-wing Frasier Institute,” have in recent years actually come full circle in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are now firmly in the camp of the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists in understanding what is, in fact, reality.
The Science IS settled. Right wing policy centers will continue to claim it is not, but it IS. People with ties to industry will claim it is not to further their own self-interests, but it IS. I’m not sure why you feel it is something worthy of debate anymore. You’re arguing against your own and EVERYONE ON THIS PLANET’S self interest. And for no good reason. And with no legitimate stance to take, all you are doing is spreading ignorance by arguing the contrary.
February 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm #746434
JoBParticipantkootch…
that old adage “follow the money” is useful here.
all you have to do is is examine who is funding the “science” of denial and the massive ad campaign to promote doubt.
the dollar return on climate denial must be pretty high for our nations major polluters to invest so much in it..
don’t ya think?
February 17, 2012 at 10:56 pm #746435
365StairsParticipantBig fan of WorldCitizen! My favorite line…
“You’re arguing against your own and EVERYONE ON THIS PLANET’S self interest. And for no good reason. And with no legitimate stance to take, all you are doing is spreading ignorance by arguing the contrary.”
It is flat out amazing…
This is our ONE earth…no spare one laying around…
No do overs
No time outs
Nothing else exists without this earth.
If you cannot tell by simply looking around that our earth is hurting…then you are worst kind of blind possible…
Unwilling to see.
February 18, 2012 at 5:30 pm #746436
NFiorentiniMemberThis thread is all sorts of awesome! A sincere thank you to all who participated!
The issue of climate change itself is important to me because, at one time, I myself was a denier. I wrote letters to editors of small-town newspapers, I volunteered for the campaigns of politicians who were deniers (and conspiracy buffs), etc.
(The issue is also important because who the hell wants brown recluse spiders in Seattle?)
My mistake was that I wanted to believe that anthropogenic climate change was not occurring and so the only information that I deemed “truthful” was information that substantiated this belief. I was also a fundamentalist Christian at the time, and the idea that “God” would not let mankind harm His creation played into my worldview. Nowadays, I am deeply ashamed of these things.
Going back to school and meeting professors who know what they are talking about and who have also spent copious amounts time researching climatology convinced me that I was wrong. Learning some of the underlying science itself was also helpful.
“An unexamined life is not worth living.” – Socrates.
February 20, 2012 at 7:18 am #746437
WorldCitizenParticipantCheers!
February 20, 2012 at 8:39 am #746438
kootchmanMemberIt all depends on who/what you examine. And it all goes back to the thread…. its not conclusive science. Far from it. I worked for Dow when chlorinated biphenyls were shown to destroy ozone…and they adjusted formulations. Found the alternatives too. You wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for elevated CO2 levels… far above todays levels… no grasses, no grains, no fruits… no mammals. Climtology trends based on 10 year studies… eons..not decades.
February 22, 2012 at 10:50 am #746439
B-CheckParticipantPretty interesting how this thread has sort of bounced all over the place, especially since I work as an environmental specialist and am a practicing Catholic. To be frank, I think there have been quite a few cheap shots on both sides of the issue. I myself was skeptical for some time, mainly due to unresponsible media coverage “oh it’s a hot day, must be global warming.” But regardless of the cause, when you have island communities in Alaska disappearing due to sea level rise and buildings sinking into thawing permafrost, and the glaciers at Glacier National Park at about 25% of their size less than a century ago, something is going on. I personally believe we are contributing to that affect, but can understand how it is still under debate. Again, regardless of cause, we should be looking at adaptation strategies – how can we limit affects and deal with those that may be inevitable. Finally, as oddly as it was that the Catholic Church was pulled in, does anyone else realize they are huge proponents of climate change study and environmental stewardship in general? There is a Catholic Climate Change Commission even, details about which can be found at: http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/
It sort of saddens me that our state of politics and debate is so polarized – we really could learn more by trying to embrace and acknowledging contrary viewpoints and looking for common ground to help devise solutions, versus just mean spirited name calling. My two cents (ok, maybe more like a nickel’s worth) – I am stepping off the soap box!
February 22, 2012 at 2:42 pm #746440
kootchmanMemberYes, indeed, in the long tradition of scientific study, including one of the worlds oldest astronomical study body, The Vatican Observatory….and while you cite global retreat of glaciers, core samples of the Gulf of Oman would also show a “stall” in global ocean currents around 2400 BC that created a mini-ice age in northern latitudes and the virtual collapse of Egyptian civilization. We are still emerging from the last ice age, in fact the Great Lakes Basin is still ascending from the removal of the glacial burden. That thawing tundra is sinking bio mass… indicating far warmer climate… I know dude.. I sold tons of insulation under all those road beds. I saw the core samples of as much as 150 feet depths of timber and mosses, lichens, conifers and deciduous trees. All the way up to the north slope. Wonder how that happened? Estimated by USGS to less 150,000 years old. It is conflicted science. It will remain conflicted science until there is more data. Even the IPCC data predicted a rise of 7″ in the remainder of the century was (shock) flawed data…again.
But, hardly worth turning the world economic order over and a $10,000 tax break on a Chevy Volt is going to do nothing. Our atmosphere has sustained substantially heaver co2 loads in the past.. much to to our evolutionary benefit. With a world population approaching 10 billion by 2083…. we may be happy folks that we can plant in that tundra again! Co2 becomes sugars and complex carbohydrates…..food. It may be a cosmic gift in the offing.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.