[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 3 2006, 03:02 PM, said:

More news from the past......All of the "great" extinctions (Permian, Devonian and yes, even the Tertiary-Cretaceous) appear to be the result of ....wait for it.....GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

Massive lava outflows (the Deccan in India, 65 million years ago) increased the greenhouse gas content, lowering ocean oxygen levels, increasing H2S levels from the resultant microbial growth in the oceans, causing destruction of the ozone layer, poisoning of the land surface and de-oxygenating the oceans. The asteroid hit at Chixhulub was like the cherry on a sundae. It just provided an added hit.

The CO2 content needs to get above 1000 ppm (so at current levels we are safe for about 150 years.....)

The only problem is that the ice age scenarios are independant of this and fluctuate at maxima of where we are now both CO2 and global temperature wise. Thus, why hasn't Europe started to freeze over yet? Maybe the CO2 will heat the earth enough to just melt the polar caps but compensate for the loss of heat from the gulf stream as it peters out.....

Nice scenario, keep CO2 levels high enough to stop the ice age but low enough to prevent the extinction of life on earth as we know it. Kind of makes the rest of our problems pale in comparison.

you mean it was ... wait for it ... natural? you mean MAN didn't cause all of these catastrophes? damn the bad luck

[DrTodd13]

Where are the killer hurricanes this year? It has been kind of funny this year. Half the stories have been "GW does not cause larger numbers or more powerful hurricanes" and the other half have been "GW is going to kill us with large numbers of more powerful hurricanes." Those academic conferences have got to be rip-roaring fun. It's also pissed me off...a recent story "earth hottest it has been in 1 million years." This is a total and ridiculous lie. You only have to go back to 1300 or so to find a climate hotter than ours today.

[Gerben42]

Point 1: In the medieval period the climate was not as hot as now but instead as hot as the middle of last century.

Point 2: The Earth has been hotter than it currently is, although this was quite some time ago.

Point 3: There is natural climate change and human-induced climate change.

Point 4: Climate change is bad for us.

Conclusion: We might not be able to stop global warming, but enhancing it is bad for us, so we should do all to decrease the human-induced part.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Oct 4 2006, 02:21 AM, said:

Where are the killer hurricanes this year?  It has been kind of funny this year.  Half the stories have been "GW does not cause larger numbers or more powerful hurricanes" and the other half have been "GW is going to kill us with large numbers of more powerful hurricanes."  Those academic conferences have got to be rip-roaring fun.  It's also pissed me off...a recent story "earth hottest it has been in 1 million years."  This is a total and ridiculous lie.  You only have to go back to 1300 or so to find a climate hotter than ours today.

Todd, we can all point out idiotic statements that folks on the other "side" make. It really doesn't do much good to point out that there are idiots out there.

For example, I could go and comment that you are (apparently) too stupid to understand the difference between an isolated data point and a long term trend. I don't bother doing so, because it doesn't really advance my point.

(For what its worth, the academics are, for the most part, in pretty widespread agreement about global warming. There are a few genuine skeptics. There are a LOT of folks that tobacco and big oil pay to muddy the waters.)

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Oct 3 2006, 03:44 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Oct 4 2006, 02:21 AM, said:

Where are the killer hurricanes this year?  It has been kind of funny this year.  Half the stories have been "GW does not cause larger numbers or more powerful hurricanes" and the other half have been "GW is going to kill us with large numbers of more powerful hurricanes."  Those academic conferences have got to be rip-roaring fun.  It's also pissed me off...a recent story "earth hottest it has been in 1 million years."  This is a total and ridiculous lie.  You only have to go back to 1300 or so to find a climate hotter than ours today.

Todd, we can all point out idiotic statements that folks on the other "side" make. It really doesn't do much good to point out that there are idiots out.

For example, I could go and comment that you are (apparently) too stupid to understand the difference between an isolated data point and a long term trend. I don't bother doing so, because it doesn't really advance my point.

(For what its worth, the academics are, for the most part, in pretty widespread agreement about global warming. There are a few genuine skeptics. There are a LOT of folks that tobacco and big oil pay to muddy the waters.)

I've tried to be civil with you. You obviously can't take it when somebody points out failed predictions of your beloved religion. I have a Ph.D. on my wall that says I know how to do research and it seems to me that it is the rabid GW fanatics that eschew any failed prediction as an aberation and trumpet every hot day as GW is going to kill us. I try to point out silliness on both sides. Sure, no one here is accomplishing anything but the rest of us are at least managing to have a civil discussion and then you stick your head in with your I'm-smarter-than-everyone-else attitude and anyone who isn't convinced of GW is an idiot. You make fun of conspiracy nuts and then claim your own conspiracy that anti-GW people are stooges of big oil. Either discuss things civilly or shut the hell up.

[luke warm]

DrTodd13, on Oct 4 2006, 01:55 AM, said:

Either discuss things civilly or shut the hell up.

there is a type of argumentation on these posts that i'll term anti-debate... in that type, ad hominem attacks, mere assertions, and straw man arguments are not only the norm, they are given points... get with the program, todd... civility and rules of logic are things of the past

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Oct 4 2006, 09:55 AM, said:

You make fun of conspiracy nuts and then claim your own conspiracy that anti-GW people are stooges of big oil.  Either discuss things civilly or shut the hell up.

There's a famous old saying: "You aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you":

I readily admit that I am, by and large, skeptical about a lot of the conspiracy theories that I see floating arround. In particular, I think that claims that some group crashed two separate jetlines into the twin towers to cover a controlled demolition is silly. However, in the case of Global Warming skeptics there is a well extablished money trail leading from Big Tobacco and Big Oil to some of the most prominent and influential skeptic sites.

I'm very much in favor of freedom of speach and freedom of the press. I'd even go so far as to agree with recent Supreme Court decisions that equate money with speach. I don't see anything wrong with Exxon providing funding to the Cato Institute while not (hypothetically) funding Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Fund. Equally significant, I also that that its reasonable to discount the opinions of individuals and organizations that are recieving large amounts of money from players. In particular, when one finds an example of a think tank that was explictly and deliberately created to muddy the waters on a given topic and create the appearance of debate you really need to wonder whether you can trust their claims.

The BBC did some interesting political reporting documenting the role of Big Tobacco in the Global Warming debate. (One of the nice little outcomes of the Tobacco settlement was that Phillip Morris and the lot had to hand over a lot of their corporate documents. You find all sorts of fun things inside there). Lets hop into the wayback machine and jump back to 1993. Lots of people were starting to criticize the Tobacco industry because of second hand smoke. Phillip Morris decided that needed to create a "grass roots coaltion” to “cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health.” (For the record, these quotes are statements contained in Phillip Morris documents). Furthermore, the ad agency that Phillip Morris hired to oversee this effort felt that a grass roots organization that only focused on passive smoking would be too obvious an example of astroturf to have any credibility. Accordingly, they decided that the grass roots organization should be more ecumenical in nature. There was a deliberate decision made to “‘link the tobacco issue with other more politically correct products’ and campaign on issues like global warming.” The result of all this was The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, the Grand Daddy of the climate skeptics. (For example, Steven J. Milloy who runs junkscience.com was the former director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition).

I want to be clear, I am not claiming that every scientist that critiques Global Warming does so because they were paid off. However, I am stating that the controversy over Global Warming is largely manufactured and that there are documents and paper trails to prove it. The group of reputable scientists who dispute Global Warming is very much in the minority and their numbers are dwindling.

Furthermore, companies like Exxon continue with this same type of Astroturf today.

[Al_U_Card]

DrTodd13, on Oct 3 2006, 06:21 PM, said:

Where are the killer hurricanes this year?

I guess if you had been on a boat in the mid-Atlantic when one of the 5 hurricanes of this season passed over you....they might have been considered "killers". The fact that none of them made it to landfall in the US is a nice and well needed break.

Natural phenomena being what they are, our predictions are pretty much only educated guesses. It is not a question of "if" but only one of "when".

[Al_U_Card]

The reason I brought up the new info was to illustrate how devastating GW can be in extremis. As it stands right now, we are on a crux as far as how the world climate may go. Never before in the last million years have CO2 concentrations been so high without the ice ages starting......(never before has man been around to screw with the natural order of things either). Temperatures are on the rise (naturally or otherwise) so sell that beachfront property, quick!

[hrothgar]

Interesting article on Global Warming at Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2150919/

From my perspective, the most useful data point was the discussion regarding wind sheers and hurricane formation.

[hrothgar]

Guess folks have lost interest in the whole Global Warming "debate".

I expected some comments attacking the Stern report by now...

[mike777]

too worried about all the fish dying off by 2048...stop eating seafood now!

[Winstonm]

I voted "yes" on global warming.

[keylime]

Recent Article on Global Warming

Once again, junk science debunked for what it really is: a farce.

[helene_t]

keylime, on Nov 6 2006, 08:14 AM, said:

Recent Article on Global Warming

Once again, junk science debunked for what it really is: a farce.

Could you find a more reliable source, Dwayne?

This guy once wrote a letter to the editor of British Medical Journal about the risk of HIV transmission by kissing. He also invented some mathematical puzzle for entertainment. I haven't found anything written by him that is even remotely related to climate research.

And now he wrote in Sunday Telegraph that "next week I'll show that .....".

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Nov 6 2006, 09:14 AM, said:

Recent Article on Global Warming

Once again, junk science debunked for what it really is: a farce.

Wow...

We're in agreement for once. The article that you reference is badly flawed in any number of places. Most of the points that it is trumpeting can be refuted by a very casual scan of climate science web sites like www.realclimate.org. However, for some reasons, authors like Monckton continue to push the same tired old garbage hoping that some idiot will be credulous enough to believe it.

Case in point: Lets take a look a the main graph that Monckton choose for his article


The RealClimate FAQ has a number of detailed comments refuting Monkton's conclusions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ckey-stickquot/

[Al_U_Card]

Hey! Why not leave it up to our kids and grandkids? They are the ones that will have to live in igloos or inland away from the rising seas or whatever....Why should we worry about the future anyway? It is and should be someone else's problem! Now where are my keys to the SUV, I have to drive to the corner store to get some overpackaged convenience food that I will then not recycle.....because no one is making me do otherwise and I certainly have no compunctions about it...

[keylime]

Richard and Helene,

When I read the article I was quite appalled at the lack of rigor that the central argument had. It felt quite amateurish; almost as if a 10th grader was acting in their self-defense against a team of lawyers.

Even tho I strongly feel that global warming is overhyped, I still readily admit that if the painstaking science is done to prove that this concept is valid, then I will change my position on this topic.

[Al_U_Card]

And if the converse is true then we will be the first ones (among many) to enjoy the situation fully.

[Winstonm]

And then there is this:

Quote

Winnipeg Free Press
November 1, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two federal agencies are investigating whether the Bush administration tried to block government scientists from speaking freely about global warming and censor their research, a senator said Wednesday.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, (D-N.J.), said he was informed that the inspector generals for the Commerce Department and NASA had begun "co-ordinated, sweeping investigations of the Bush administration's censorship and suppression" of federal research into global warming.

"These investigations are critical because the Republicans in Congress have ignored this serious problem," Lautenberg said.

He said the investigations "will uncover internal documents and agency correspondence that may expose widespread misconduct." He added, "Taxpayers do not fund scientific research so the Bush White House can alter it."

This certainly fits with the neo-cons claim that "we create our own reality." Not only do they create their own reality, they seem to ignore and suppress anything that doesn't fit their agenda.