Global Warming News

[IH3444]

We all need a break from the discussion, so I am offering up some refreshments.

 

[keegs]

My reason for replying to your posts is that I hope it gives others that might be curios about the debate some ideas of what both sides feel. I realize that we will never change each others minds. It is what it is, and I'm fine with that. The bigger pictures is that the tide has turned and the truth is coming out. The emails were HUGE and pretty much put an end to the argument. A few years ago when this topic came up, it was a much differet debate. Now there are a few of you who still believe, but that number is shrinking.

Wikipedia is OK for basic information, but it's extremly liberal on politics. I looked up the Hockey Stick on there and they actually have Michael Mann's graph and site him as an expert. He's one of the main guys who's been discredited and proven to be a liar. His efforst to eliminate the Medival Warming Period are too much for even those who used to defend him. He's now an outcast and will soon disapear completely.

Your reply failed to mention any debates, but instead sites the countries that are pushing for global warming. Even though they failed to meet their own emission and carbon goals, they feel that they can tell us what to do. Why just the US and not India, China and Russia? Could it be because those countries just laughed at them and don't even pretend like it's something they will do?

For a debate to take place, you need experts from both sides of the isle. When you have meetings with just those how support global warming, regardless of what country it's in, it's not a debate.

The reason you can't site a single debate is that it's never happened.

Thank you for your reply, it was what I had hoped for.

Eddie

Eddie,

I'm happy our conversation thus far hasn't degraded into partisan name calling.

I was up with the chickens this morning an it's been a very long day. I'm going to have a glass of wine and watch the newshour.

Hope we can resume this discussion at a later date.

Cheers....

 

[dave1949]

If CO2 is causing the planet to warm up, then why has the planet been cooling for the past decade? One of the more reveiling emails that came out in the climategate scandal is they one complaining about not understanding why the planet is cooling. They don't have a clue what is going on, and are desperate to keep the hoax going in the hopes that the planet will start warming again. For them, it's a waiting game until their predictions come true. Until then, they will fabricate and change the evidence to support thier theories.

A simple question to ask yourself. If CO2 leads to an increase in global temperatures, and CO2 is a result of human activity, why is the planet cooling while human activity is increasing. The Chinese are doing allot to put out CO2, but the planet isn't warming.

Is it possible that the scientist who disagree with man made global warming might be correct in their theory that CO2 levels follow planet temperatures? Could it be possible that CO2 levels have nothing to do with global tempertures? The answer to both questions is yes. It is possible, and that's just as good a guess as CO2 being responsible. Since nobody knows what the answer is, the only thing left to conclued is the motivation for making the claims without any evidence. Is it for personal gain? Prestige? Power?

Since they don't know what CO2 does, or it's effect, what makes you think that they know how to stop it or change it? Giveing third world countries billions of dollars is the UN's answer, but nobody has been able to explain how that actually cools the planet.

Then there is the question that nobody will answer. What temperature is the right one? the best one? With everything, there is good and bad. Global Warming people have been very outspoken on all the bad that can happen. It might even be their downfall, because I feel that they went too far and became silly in their predictions. Oceans rising 30 feet is pretty absurd.

What are the benifits of a warmer planet? More farmland? Less energy used to heat homes? Longer growing seasons? More rain? Fewer people freezing to death? There has to be a positive side to a warmer planet. Where are the pros and cons to this?

I feel that the sun is what decided what the temperature on the planet will be. There is nothing that we can do to change this. We cannot make it warmer and we cannot make it cooler. All we can do is be good shepards of what we have and leave the planet a better place for our children.

Eddie

I am not sure that when you say the globe has been cooling for the past decade that is true. In any case, if you look at global temp data from various sources, they all show a sawtooth shape graph with an upward tendency that really strengthened in the late 1970's. In every decade there are dips and peaks. I would expect variations to occur. We are going to have to wait for the sequel.

Some nice things to look at here:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

As to whether a warmer climate is good for us, I don't think so. That's pretty risky. The droughts that the southern US recently experienced and the same in parts of Africa, are also extremes of weather that have happened in the past but could become more frequent. In New England we had a very cool year. Another almost extreme.

The point is, it's not as simple as turning up the thermostat and all else remains equal. There will be unwanted and unforeseen side effects. The southwestern states are already on the verge of having to totally revamp their water usage strategy. People keep moving there and they aren't bringing water with them, and it isn't raining or snowing more, actually less.

Should we believe scientists who claim more CO2 is just what the doctor ordered? To me that's just another flavor of koolaid. How could they possibly know?

The point about dinosaurs living in a CO2 rich world is one of those irrelevant issues. None of the flora and fauna we depend upon to keep us alive now were evolved or adapted to those climate conditions.

The core issue of climate change has always been, are we altering the climate faster than animals and plants can adapt to the changes?
Dave.

 

[CRJCaptain]

The Hockey Stick chart clearly shows the rapid heating that the planet has experienced, which is caused by CO2 emissions. The more CO2 that goes into the air, the hotter the planet has become.

Unfortuantly for the creater of the hockey stick and those who believe this, it's now come out that they not only fudged the numbers to make it look like it's warming, when it's not, but the had to eliminate the actual temps from the first 400 years of the last century. A period known as the Mideval Warming Period. A time when wine grapes grew in Scottland and farmers grew crops in Greenland. A time that was much, MUCH warmer then even the inflated, and fabricated extreme temps on the last couple decades.

NASA has had to change their date for the hottest decade in the last century. They were caught lying about their data and quietly made the late 1930's as the hottest decade. As you can see in the graph, it was warmer back then, before the invention of CO2. hahaha

That is also when the famous drought and dust bowl years happened that became such a contributing factor to the Depression and WWII. It's also when the worst Hurricanes happend.

What I really find interesting is that when it was so much hotter in the Mideval Warming Period, human life flourished and we made HUGE advancements. The glaciers didn't melt and the oceans didn't cover the contenents. And to the best of my knowledge, the Polar Bears didn't go extinct back then either !!!!!!!!!!! hahahaha

Eddie

For more in depth discussion on "The Medieval Warming Period" as well as the so-called "hockey stick", I strongly recommend you watch this:

YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"

 

[Pilot]

First, the lumber companies: Of course they have an interest, but so do the environmentalists. I have seen very disreputable tactics used by the "environmentalists" and that leaves them with zero credibility in my mind. One brief example: We were planning a timber sale in an area that had traditionally been used by the Warm Springs Indians. We worked with them and they had no objection to the sale. Then an "environmentalist" brought an Indian supposedly from the Yakima tribe to say that the area was sacred ground for them. "Ok, show us the sacred ground and we'll protect it." This was the normal approach, as the Indians had specific sites, usually rock outcrops that gave a great view, that used for their vision quest experiences. "No, the whole area is sacred." He couldn't show us any sacred ground because this "Yakima" Indian had never been in the area before--he was actually from Missouri--this was in Oregon. By the way, this was a second growth stand, about 60 years old.

Ah, yes Wikipedia. One of the most trusted sources of information. But not always unbiased and trustworthy. The people at the top want it to be unbiased, but at least one of the administrators has been shown to be less than honest: Wiki revoked William Connolley's administrator status after finding that he created or rewrote 5,428 articles relating to global warming, he banned over 2,000 contributors with whom he disagreed and he removed about 500 articles he didn't like. He removed the article about the medieval warming period as well as any criticism of global warming orthodoxy. The number 2 person for the subject area is in the same philosophical camp as Connolley.

So, for the time being, Wikipedia is unreliable and biased in regard to any discussion about climate change.

And just because environmental activists want to save the world, they aren't all saints and should be treated with as much skepticism as any other human.

One last thing: The alarmists say we are in the warmest time in history. A couple errors in that. It was warmer in the 1930's (a fact the alarmists have had to admit after they got all the press saying now was the warmest) and the medieval warming period was warmer, but of course they erased that from the IPCC report.

 

[CRJCaptain]

Looking outside and saying "Wow, it's cold..." says lots about the weather.

Problem is, weather is not climate...

 

[dave1949]

We all need a break from the discussion, so I am offering up some refreshments.

Good one. LOL
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

Pilot,

Good that you bring your timber experience to the table. One thing I notice about timber land management around here, there are no areas set aside long enough to become true old growth.

I have nothing against the harvesting of timber when done responsibly. I do wish there could be tracts that are never logged however. Reaching old growth status and staying around long enough to support old growth dependent species are two different things.

I agree we have to get the science right.
Dave.

 

[Ken45101]

I do wish there could be tracts that are never logged however. Reaching old growth status and staying around long enough to support old growth dependent species are two different things

Wilderness areas and National Parks are very large tracts that will never be logged. Surely that's plenty for any legitimate research.

There are also areas in the eastern U.S. that have never been touched, they are virgin climax forests.

Ken

 

[CRJCaptain]

I can't speak for the scientist, and what they are more interested in, but from what I'm observing, more and more of them are coming out against man made global warming. If you'll remember, when this all started, there was a list of signitures of scientist who supported global warming. It was used at proof that it is for real, and that it's caused by human activity. Since then, many of them have had their names removed from the list because they never gave permission for it to be there. I think the real number of scientist who support global warming is around 55, but I'm not positive on that number.

Anyway, there is another list of 31,000 scientist, with 9,000 of them beng PHD's who are denying man made global warming.

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming - Telegraph

Eddie

Eddie, I would like to commend you for keeping this debate respectful and civil...so often it devolves into name-calling or worse.

I have to respectfully call out the reference to the oft-quoted petition of 31,000 scientists. When you dig a little deeper you see that of this 31,000 something like only 39 of these are actually climate scientists. There are also many duplicate entries and complete fabrications.

Kevin Grandia | The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

 

[EddieWalker]

Eddie, I would like to commend you for keeping this debate respectful and civil...so often it devolves into name-calling or worse.

I have to respectfully call out the reference to the oft-quoted petition of 31,000 scientists. When you dig a little deeper you see that of this 31,000 something like only 39 of these are actually climate scientists. There are also many duplicate entries and complete fabrications.

Kevin Grandia | The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

I read your link and had to laugh. I hope you didn't actually read it and believe it, but instead found the link on a googe search and posted it without looking it over. LOL

Here's a link to the actual petition.

Global Warming Petition Project

If you take a quick look at it, you can decide for yourself if they are real scientists or not. This link breaks them down by their specialty.

Global Warming Petition Project

And here's a story fron WND that talks about it.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

Eddie

 

[keegs]

I read your link and had to laugh. I hope you didn't actually read it and believe it, but instead found the link on a googe search and posted it without looking it over. LOL

Here's a link to the actual petition.

Global Warming Petition Project

If you take a quick look at it, you can decide for yourself if they are real scientists or not. This link breaks them down by their specialty.

Global Warming Petition Project

And here's a story fron WND that talks about it.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

Eddie

Morning Eddie,

So are we going to have the battle of the petitions now?

As I said in one of my earlier posts, we're not qualified to debate the details of climate science. That's what climate scientists do and there's a consensus now among them that we need to act and soon on this issue. Now whether you believe that there is or isn't is up to you but in any objective sense of the word ...there is a consensus.

What we are qualified to do as citizens is absorb the news and apply it to our world views. It seems to me that what you want in this case isn't a debate on the science but rather a political debate. And certainly that's part of any democratic course to addressing something as significant as the country's response to climate change.

That political debate shouldn't be used to discredit scientists with broad strokes, undermine the fact of the issue and degenerate into falsehoods, accusations and innuendo. I think we both agree on that.

If you have some suggestions on how to do that in this polity....I'm all ears..or in this case....eyes.

 

[NuBota]

IMHO, the human race is not qualified to debate this topic. To think at this point in human history we understand this planet, or the broader universe, with any degree of certainty is pure arrogance. Theories, built upon other theories built upon refutable data. There are no "facts" - we are continually making new discoveries that question or debunk theories that were generally accepted as fact. There is good circumstantial evidence that make both sides of this argument viable - but since there is no smoking gun, the debate becomes philosophical. And we all know philosophical debates can last for millenia, i.e. religion, politics, economics, etc. It is human nature to jump on one bandwagon, or another - everyone needs a "cause" to give their life meaning.

But at the end of the day it won't matter anyway - if we are truly in a warming cycle, whether or not, it is caused or accelerated by man - we will still wait until we are on the brink of catastrophe before any real efforts are made. Human nature is the one constant in all of this - we like to repeat history over and over.

While this debate rages on and creates all kinds of political and economic headaches, with no real change, and both sides saying "I told you so" with every little event that appears to support their cause (smacks of credit and blame for our economic cycles) we will probably get hit by an asteroid, or volcanic eruption, or some natural, biological, menace that will be a true, immediate, catastrophic event. But of course, in all of our greatness, we think we are up to the task to prevent that as well - just like we can keep water out of New Orleans or keep buildings in San Francisco from crumbling during a big earthquake

Most likely, the actual "solution" will be to adapt as changes occur. It will be a geo-political and economic mess - but we will survive, although Darwin may come into play to some degree. The northern hemisphere will gain some new residents as the coastlines disappear and new deserts appear - I'm sure migrations like that have happened in the past as well. This is when we will see the real genius of the human race arise - we always find a way forward when we are backed into a corner.

The notion that we will be able to preserve the current geo-political status by influencing nature is just another example of human arrogance and denial. We will adapt to the changing world around us, not adapt the world to our needs - although the current smartest and brightest will continue to try - in true Don Quixote style....

Sorry, just another philosophical perspective from someone that isn't even remotely qualified to debate that facts.....

 

[keegs]

IMHO, the human race is not qualified to debate this topic. To think at this point in human history we understand this planet, or the broader universe, with any degree of certainty is pure arrogance. Theories, built upon other theories built upon refutable data. There are no "facts" - we are continually making new discoveries that question or debunk theories that were generally accepted as fact. There is good circumstantial evidence that make both sides of this argument viable - but since there is no smoking gun, the debate becomes philosophical. And we all know philosophical debates can last for millenia, i.e. religion, politics, economics, etc. It is human nature to jump on one bandwagon, or another - everyone needs a "cause" to give their life meaning.

But at the end of the day it won't matter anyway - if we are truly in a warming cycle, whether or not, it is caused or accelerated by man - we will still wait until we are on the brink of catastrophe before any real efforts are made. Human nature is the one constant in all of this - we like to repeat history over and over.

While this debate rages on and creates all kinds of political and economic headaches, with no real change, and both sides saying "I told you so" with every little event that appears to support their cause (smacks of credit and blame for our economic cycles) we will probably get hit by an asteroid, or volcanic eruption, or some natural, biological, menace that will be a true, immediate, catastrophic event. But of course, in all of our greatness, we think we are up to the task to prevent that as well - just like we can keep water out of New Orleans or keep buildings in San Francisco from crumbling during a big earthquake

Most likely, the actual "solution" will be to adapt as changes occur. It will be a geo-political and economic mess - but we will survive, although Darwin may come into play to some degree. The northern hemisphere will gain some new residents as the coastlines disappear and new deserts appear - I'm sure migrations like that have happened in the past as well. This is when we will see the real genius of the human race arise - we always find a way forward when we are backed into a corner.

The notion that we will be able to preserve the current geo-political status by influencing nature is just another example of human arrogance and denial. We will adapt to the changing world around us, not adapt the world to our needs - although the current smartest and brightest will continue to try - in true Don Quixote style....

Sorry, just another philosophical perspective from someone that isn't even remotely qualified to debate that facts.....

NuB,

I remember as a kid reading about the Cuyahoga river catching fire and the devastating Lake Erie algae blooms and fish kills. As a teenager I spent many vacations hiking along the Northville Placid trail in the Adirondack mountains encountering lakes and ponds completely devoid of fish due to their high ph levels. And it's only been a decade or so since the world came together to address the problem of CFC's and their affects on ozone levels.

On each of these occasions there were very similar arguments about the nature of the problems and the cost of remediation. We know how things worked out and today I doubt there are any conservatives willing to advocate the positions they once took.

I'm not ready to roll over.

 

[keegs]

First, the lumber companies: Of course they have an interest, but so do the environmentalists. I have seen very disreputable tactics used by the "environmentalists" and that leaves them with zero credibility in my mind. One brief example: We were planning a timber sale in an area that had traditionally been used by the Warm Springs Indians. We worked with them and they had no objection to the sale. Then an "environmentalist" brought an Indian supposedly from the Yakima tribe to say that the area was sacred ground for them. "Ok, show us the sacred ground and we'll protect it." This was the normal approach, as the Indians had specific sites, usually rock outcrops that gave a great view, that used for their vision quest experiences. "No, the whole area is sacred." He couldn't show us any sacred ground because this "Yakima" Indian had never been in the area before--he was actually from Missouri--this was in Oregon. By the way, this was a second growth stand, about 60 years old.

Ah, yes Wikipedia. One of the most trusted sources of information. But not always unbiased and trustworthy. The people at the top want it to be unbiased, but at least one of the administrators has been shown to be less than honest: Wiki revoked William Connolley's administrator status after finding that he created or rewrote 5,428 articles relating to global warming, he banned over 2,000 contributors with whom he disagreed and he removed about 500 articles he didn't like. He removed the article about the medieval warming period as well as any criticism of global warming orthodoxy. The number 2 person for the subject area is in the same philosophical camp as Connolley.

So, for the time being, Wikipedia is unreliable and biased in regard to any discussion about climate change.

And just because environmental activists want to save the world, they aren't all saints and should be treated with as much skepticism as any other human.

One last thing: The alarmists say we are in the warmest time in history. A couple errors in that. It was warmer in the 1930's (a fact the alarmists have had to admit after they got all the press saying now was the warmest) and the medieval warming period was warmer, but of course they erased that from the IPCC report.

I read in the papers yesterday that the EPA will allow the practice of mountaintop removal coal mining to continue in West Virginia.

My guess is the lumber industry needs a new lobbying firm.

 

[Bedlam]

Bota well said.We are much smaller than we think.

 

[20 20]

Pilot,

Good that you bring your timber experience to the table. One thing I notice about timber land management around here, there are no areas set aside long enough to become true old growth.

This was my point also, the small timers, come in, clear cut{do a crappy job} then leave. They'll also buy land cheap go in clear it then resell or just let go for taxes. The money they make off the logs is worth loosing a few K.

I have nothing against the harvesting of timber when done responsibly. I do wish there could be tracts that are never logged however. Reaching old growth status and staying around long enough to support old growth dependent species are two different things.

I agree we have to get the science right.
Dave.

Exactly my thoughts also, thank you Dave

 

[20 20]

Wilderness areas and National Parks are very large tracts that will never be logged. Surely that's plenty for any legitimate research.

There are also areas in the eastern U.S. that have never been touched, they are virgin climax forests.

Ken

Never say never, in the US money talks. I know of supposed protected wet lands that were never suppose to see cement pavement nor buildings that now have walcrap sitting on them. NOTHING is forever when greed takes over.

 

[20 20]

NuB,

I remember as a kid reading about the Cuyahoga river catching fire and the devastating Lake Erie algae blooms and fish kills. As a teenager I spent many vacations hiking along the Northville Placid trail in the Adirondack mountains encountering lakes and ponds completely devoid of fish due to their high ph levels. And it's only been a decade or so since the world came together to address the problem of CFC's and their affects on ozone levels.

On each of these occasions there were very similar arguments about the nature of the problems and the cost of remediation. We know how things worked out and today I doubt there are any conservatives willing to advocate the positions they once took.

I'm not ready to roll over.

The acid rain was/is nasty, there are still small lakes and ponds still trying to recover from this.

 

[IH3444]

The spin masters walk among us.

It's Freezing: Must Be Global Warming - Yahoo! News

I saw a program by The History Channel. It was titled "How The Earth Was Formed"

It showed the extreme tempertures the earth has endured. From being a molten ball of liquid, to having a mile thick crust of ice. Many theories, as well as plausible scientific explainations are given for these wide swings. One stuck in my mind....the narrator stated, "If the temperture of the earth was 2 degrees cooler, (didn't say either F or C scale) then we would have glaicers down over New York City"

Now that senairo is a bit chilling. He also went on to state that the glaciers would be twice as high as the Empire State Building, grinding the city into the ocean.