# Global Warming: Not By Man Alone



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

New study says shifting ocean currents also account for drying trend in N. America



> It's wrong to blame our warming climate on human pollution alone, says a major analysis by U.S. climate scientists who say North America's warming and drying trend also has important natural causes.
> 
> Natural shifts in ocean currents have caused much of the warming in recent decades, and almost all of the droughts, says the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
> 
> ...


Like I’ve said so many times, scientists simply don’t know what they’re talking about.

Global warming: not by man alone


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No - YOU don't .....- no climatologist has ever disputed local variations in climate - do you know what NAO, ENSO, PDO even ARE???? - you have no knowledge of La Nina or or PDO influence despite it being explained to you ad nauseum.....

You continue to look ill informed and foolish by making posts like this. THESE are the long term trends and signals showing the changes 

It just boggles my mind how little grasp you have of the geo-systems of the planet yo live on and their scale yet you try and over turn the science that very bright people spend a life time understanding one aspect alone.
You think Alberta is centre of the universe cuz you've had a couple of La Nina induced cold winters....

Conflating a cyclic ocean overturn represented by back to back La Ninas and a cold PDO with system wide energy gain or not is ridiculous.

Arctic Report Card

THIS is the biggest signal of all and you have NO mechanism to explain it....you even deny it's existence with your posted nonsense....











> Figure L1. Spatial distribution of trends in May to Aug photosynthetic activity across the northern high latitudes from 1981 through 2005. Significant positive trends in photosynthetic activity are shown in green, and negative trends are shown in rust. (From Bunn et al. 2007.)


Arctic Report Card - Land - Romanovsky, Armstrong, Shiklomanov, Walker, Jia

and this is another









see the change....care to explain - in real terms not vague hand wavings about natural...










Trend Maps

These are all trends over long base lines and all in keeping with the climate change science understanding..these are MEASUREMENTS and real trends over long baselines....

and part of that energy shows up in increased precipitation in some areas ( more energy remember ) and the shifting regime shows drier ( more extremes )









ALL of those are climate change showing up on a long scale and consistent with more retained energy in the geophysical systems....and we are contributing the carbon that sets the mechanism in action.

If you knew how foolish your petty diatribes about science are you'd maybe rethink exposing it for all to see. Of course it goes right along with Harper and Bush - your fellow travellers - anti -science ideologues.

MOST of the world has woken up from that nightmare...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It does not become you, MacDoc, to refer to SINC as foolish. 

Just because you have been bowled over by these theories, doesn't mean other people need to relax their faculties for critical thinking.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> No - YOU don't .....- no climatologist has ever disputed local variations in climate - do you know what NAO, ENSO, PDO even ARE???? - you have no knowledge of La Nina or or PDO influence despite it being explained to you ad nauseum.....
> 
> You continue to look ill informed and foolish by making posts like this. THESE are the long term trends and signals showing the changes
> 
> ...


And it boggles my mind how you can continue to lash out and be so darn rude when scientists themselves admit they are not sure what is happening. I do not have to take this abuse from you. Post reported.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I've refrained from wading in on this tempest, but today takes the cake.

MacDoc, I like a lot of your arguments. But your petty, petulant, imperiously arrogant ways are really something else. If you can't have reasoned discourse with people in here, what's your problem? Seems to me you must have a sadly brittle mind if it can brook no disagreement.

Please do yourself a favour and can the endless ejecta of insults and thinly-veiled references to people being stupid - it really ought to be beneath you.

_Sheesh_.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks Max, for a while there, I thought it was just me.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

OK again. I repeat there is more than ample evidence that climate will change dramatically and even over short periods of time. Hence the wooly mammoths trapped in blocks of ice. 

The man-made portion of greenhouse gasses is quite minor in comparison to natures. 

No I am not anti-global warming. I live in Canada and am very much in favour of it. Although over the past 3 years I have seen no signs of it here in western Canada.

I am very much opposed to carbon credit trading. It is designed to enrich the Al Gores at the expense of the general population. It is not designed or intended to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon credits are a very bad idea and could easily turn an extremely severe recession into a brutal depression.

If Al Gore seriously believed in the Warming myth it is very unlikely he would allow his personal use of electricity to exceed the national average by a factor of 20X. Incidentally his use is 35 times higher than mine. And that is just electricity, factor in plane flights; well you get the picture and it's mighty dirty .


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Like I’ve said so many times, scientists simply don’t know what they’re talking about.


Then why quote them when they agree with you?



> Global warming: not by man alone


Nobody has ever claimed that human activity was the *sole* cause of climate change. The question are "to what extent is human activity influencing climate" and "is there anything humans can do to mitigate the negative effects of climate change"?

While climate scientists know more about the answers to these questions than anyone else, there will never be certainty, and there will always be new data that has to be considered, the evidence we have so far is pretty compelling that human activity is having a significant effect, and that there may be some changes we can make to limit/un-do some of the damage we've done.

Cheers


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Then why quote them when they agree with you?


With respect, the simple answer to that question is for exactly the same reasons you have when you quote what you agree with.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> MOST of the world has woken up from that nightmare...


And what nightmare would that be - all of the falsehoods about Carbon that are peddled by people who do not practice what they preach?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC, have you enjoyed what your trolling thread has brought?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC's thread is no more trolling than any of the threads supporting global warming theory. It's up to each EhMac member to remain civil, regardless of whether they are upset by the subject matter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> SINC, have you enjoyed what your trolling thread has brought?


I'd appreciate you retracting that remark, GA. 

I posted the thread because it was page three news in this morning's Edmonton Journal. I think it entirely relevant to my position that mankind's role in global warming is being overplayed. I felt it important to show that some scientists are beginning to admit they don't know for sure what is happening, my contention all along.

And again I repeat I have done my part to lesson my carbon footprint and have admitted that man is part of the problem. But he is far and away not the sole, or for that matter, the worst contributor to the issue.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I'd appreciate you retracting that remark, GA.
> 
> I posted the thread because it was page three news in this morning's Edmonton Journal. I think it entirely relevant to my position that mankind's role in global warming is being overplayed. I felt it important to show that some scientists are beginning to admit they don't know for sure what is happening, my contention all along.
> 
> And again I repeat I have done my part to lesson my carbon footprint and have admitted that man is part of the problem. But he is far and away not the sole, or for that matter, the worst contributor to the issue.


SINC, I wouldn't have made that remark, if you yourself haven't said in numerous threads about this very subject that you enjoy riling up those who disagree with your denialist theories. That doesn't excuse Macdoc for the insulting tone he takes towards those who disagree with him and I don't think he does his arguments, which I often agree with, any favours by taking that tone. Nor have I made any mention of your personal carbon footprint however great or small it is.

This is an all too predictable and tiresome thing here. SINC posts something from his climate change denying sources knowing full well that within minutes Macdoc will snatch at the bait and usually go over the top. Tell me truthfully now that you had no idea that you would get such a response from him based on many past experiences. Not an inking? Again I repeat, I don't excuse Macdoc for his reaction.

As you know, I disagree with your view on climate change but I see little point in having the discussion with you here. I don't choose to feed that game. You are misrepresenting scientific opinion as having been "decided" on every last detail and then after setting up that straw man, you find something anywhere that shows someone doubts something about the nature of the science. This fallacy has been pointed out many times to you also.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I just got back from knee surgery, and I'm hopped up on pain killers, so take my post with a grain of salt... 

SINC... I don't think you should pretend to be a totally innocent in this. You are clearly trying to poke the hornets nest a little. But its ok to poke the hornet nest a little on ehMac, as long as the nest is an issue or an idea, not another member. 

I think some strong words have been used, but they for the most part, have been directed at members ideas, not at the members themselves. Member's ideas have been called foolish, not the members themselves in my opinion. 

At any rate, Macdoc, I'd like you to please refrain from words like foolish etc... 

You are both adults, and long standing members on ehMac who I both like, so I have refrained from any type of mandatory breathers from ehMac, but consider this a warning that next time will be a small vacation from ehMac. 

But please, lets me adults about this.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

CTV Winnipeg- Study says Arctic sea ice melting faster than expected - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suspect this year may see a pause in that given the cold Pacific conditions..still apparently high in the Arctic ocean areas instead on the surrounding continents which were very cold this year.....the temps were up as ice freezing releases heat.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

arminia, we see it here today off the coast of St.John's. I use the term "pack ice" to describe this picture, but it is incorrect. Drift ice is ice that floats on the surface of the water in cold regions, such as off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, as opposed to fast ice, which is attached ("fastened") to a shore.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Like I’ve said so many times, scientists simply don’t know what they’re talking about.


With respect, this is not what the article says at all.

In essence it says that scientists are doing exactly what they should be doing which is remaking the picture as each new piece of information comes along. Much misunderstanding comes about because the media posts new pieces of information before that new information can be effectively integrated into the overall picture. Scientists expect the picture to change as more and more is learned.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

arminia said:


> CTV Winnipeg- Study says Arctic sea ice melting faster than expected - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television


Here in lies my problem with this story.



> A new analysis of changing conditions in the region, *using complex computer models of weather and climate*, says conditions that had been forecast by the end of the century could occur much sooner.


I find it hard to believe we have people that can write software that can calculate future climate with any degree of accuracy when we can't even make a crash proof operating system to run a spreadsheet program despite decades of work from thousands of the brightest programmers on the planet. I would imagine creating software to accurately calculate earths climate would be 1000 times more complicated than eliminating the blue screen of death from windows. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Here's the thing, Sinc: I get the impression that the climate change naysayers are essentially trying to wash their hands of any responsibility for the changes in the environment by demonstrating that this is a natural thing that is independent of human involvement. That may or may not be, but it is a problem we must deal with we as humans whether we are to blame or not. When a tsunami hits, it doesn't really matter whether it was caused by global warming, natural causes, or divine intervention. It will kill just as many people no matter what the cause. If you were to watch, say, An Inconvenient Truth again with this in mind, you might also see that regardless of how all this extra carbon dioxide got into the atmosphere, we will still have to deal with the consequences. Whether its our fault or not doesn't really matter. The scientific evidence of the changes in climate and the retreating glaciers is pretty hard to refute.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

> A new analysis of changing conditions in the region, using complex computer models of weather and climate, says conditions that had been forecast by the end of the century could occur much sooner.





MacGuiver said:


> I find it hard to believe we have people that can write software that can calculate future climate with any degree of accuracy when we can't even make a crash proof operating system to run a spreadsheet program despite decades of work from thousands of the brightest programmers on the planet. I would imagine creating software to accurately calculate earths climate would be 1000 times more complicated than eliminating the blue screen of death from windows.


Again this misunderstands the role of and machinations of science. There is no magic in these 'models'. They are simply mathematical expressions of the "big picture" as they are best understood at the moment. Models change as new information comes along, the model(s) being adjusted to try to reflect new data as well as new hypotheses. To a degree the models also reflect the OS they run on and the quality of programming used to develop them, of course. Human activity in any field is imperfect and to expect otherwise is naive.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> Here's the thing, Sinc: I get the impression that the climate change naysayers are essentially trying to wash their hands of any responsibility for the changes in the environment by demonstrating that this is a natural thing that is independent of human involvement. That may or may not be, but it is a problem we must deal with we as humans are to blame or not. When a tsunami hits, it doesn't really matter whether it was caused by global warming, natural causes, or divine intervention. It will kill just as many people no matter what the cause. If you were to watch, say, An Inconvenient Truth again with this in mind, you might also see that regardless of how all this extra carbon dioxide got into the atmosphere, we will still have to deal with the consequences. Whether its our fault or not doesn't really matter. The scientific evidence of the changes in climate and the retreating glaciers is pretty hard to refute.


I don't see them doing anything to deal with the claimed consequences of climate change. If they're so sure the ocean is going to swamp lowland coastal areas, shouldn't we be evacuating those areas as we speak or at least making plans for it? Climate scientist keep telling us its too late to stop it so why are we not doing anything it avert the casualties? 
If there was a forest fire coming we'd evacuate homes, create firewalls, organize people and equipment to deal with it. I've not seen a single government action to indicate we're doing any such thing about this "impending doom" they keep warning us off. Makes me wonder if they really believe it themselves.


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Yes we should be doing something to prepare, but we tend to deny deny deny, just as several members of this forum deny that climate change is even taking place. Sometimes it takes a tsunami to smack us upside the head and demonstrate the dangers of living in low coastal areas. We prefer to think we are outside the danger zone. Fact is, relatively few animals died when the big tsunami hit a couple years back because the birds noticed the fish were acting funny and the land animals noticed the birds were acting funny and moved to a higher ground. They all took the hint that we humans somehow missed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> If there was a forest fire coming we'd evacuate homes, create firewalls, organize people and equipment to deal with it. I've not seen a single government action to indicate we're doing any such thing about this "impending doom" they keep warning us off. Makes me wonder if they really believe it themselves.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


And that is exactly why I keep saying, "scientists simply don’t know what they’re talking about." If they were sure, the lowlands along the sea shores would be ghost towns by now.

That's not trolling, nor prodding the hornet's nest in any way. That's MY opinion, pure and simple. 

The role of mankind is being severely overplayed in the total cause of global warming. They know that we contribute, but what they don't know, is what else is contributing that is naturally occurring, which was the gist of the story I originally posted. 

For the record, that story was deemed worthy enough to run in 14 Canadian daily newspapers and I still maintain is relevant comment on the whole global warming question, like it or not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic: Most, if not all people, here accept the fact that the climate changes.

rgray: Since even data about ocean levels and the nuber of violent storms doesn't show anything alarming, the best anyone should hope for is that larger and larger populations would stop migrating to sea coasts. The level of damgae and loss of life is entirely proportional to people's desire to live along the coast.

If we look at some of the "best" models available, however, even draconian C02 regulation will result in delaying the expected worst case environmental trauma by a few weeks or months.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> And that is exactly why I keep saying, "scientists simply don’t know what they’re talking about." If they were sure, the lowlands along the sea shores would be ghost towns by now.


I'm not sure of the connection here. Scientists do, in fact, tend to migrate away from areas they consider dangerous as we saw with the Strontium 90 scare back in the 50s but what other folk do is not within the control of scientists. 

People do not seem to pay attention to even historically regular weather events in choosing where to live as we are going to see again this spring as we are expected to sympathise with the "tragedy" of people who continue to live on river flood plains despite being flooded out year after year after year.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

rgray said:


> I'm not sure of the connection here. Scientists do, in fact, tend to migrate away from areas they consider dangerous as we saw with the Strontium 90 scare back in the 50s but what other folk do is not within the control of scientists.


So your saying the scientists are likely gettin out of Dodge but they just don't feel the need to tell us to do the same?
Besides them, what about the Al Gores, politicians and other climate change evangelicals 100% onboard that are convinced we're going to be flooded out. None seem to be proposing any actions to prepare for our imminent dooms day. If the ocean was going to wipe out NY I'd think all new construction would be halted and the exodus out would be started today. I'm unaware of any climate alarmist proposing this. Strange that is.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> So your saying the scientists are likely gettin out of Dodge but they just don't feel the need to tell us to do the same?


There is a mountain of literature suggesting that we do just that!!! It is not the role of scientists to tell anybody to do anything. Scientists merely observe and report, and some even modify their own behaviour accordingly but what other folk do is entirely their own business.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> There is a mountain of literature suggesting that we do just that!!! It is not the role of scientists to tell anybody to do anything. Scientists merely observe and report, and some even modify their own behaviour accordingly but what other folk do is entirely their own business.


Some statisticians still buy lottery tickets. There's often a huge disconnect between theory and conviction,


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

First of all climate patterns do not just follow the basic 11 year sun cycles. There are also several longer cycles that sometimes reinforce each other and sometimes cancel. Other than the Russians studying antarctic ice cores no one is really studying these longer cycles. 

BTW those same Russians predictions of a period of cooling up from 2007 to 2016 have so far proven more accurate than the Warmer's call.

Beyond that we really only have calibrated temperature readings from the past couple of decades. A high and a low is not adequate. Hourly readings and accurate thermometers are needed to get a true daily average. Stations in the cities are affected severely by local microclimates. The reading stations need to be outside the cities and within a stable microclimate. Chopping down a forest or allowing fields to return to forest will affect local readings.

Bottom line; Beyond a good array of ocean temp sensors we have not yet even begun to gather data.

Another issue is why are all of these warming alarmists doing nothing to slow the devastation of various forests around the world. If man is contributing to global warming, this environmental devastation of natures carbon sinks likely has a much larger impact than burning fossil fuels.

Should individuals make an attempt to conserve? Absolutely!
Should governments assist these efforts? Absolutely!
Should we be rewarded for doing this with higher living costs which are then used to line Al Gore's and other carbon credit traders bank vaults? *NO!*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

At the risk of being accused of trolling again, here is yet another view from NOAA themselves that supports my long held view that humans while involved in climate change, may only cause around half of the problem. Science again here is admitting they need more study to define other natural events that contribute significantly to climate change.

As you can read for yourselves they state that greenhouse gasses are “likely” responsible for “more than half” the warming in the past 50 years.

That leaves me to draw the conclusion that up to 49% of climate change is not related to greenhouse gasses, yet some people want 100% of our efforts put toward reducing them. Fair enough, but why ignore nearly half the other causes is my question?



> *Humans, Oceans Shaped North American Climate Over Past 50 Years, NOAA Report Says*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Dec. 29, 2008) — Greenhouse gases play an important role in North American climate, but differences in regional ocean temperatures may hold a key to predicting future U.S. regional climate changes, according to a new NOAA-led scientific assessment. The assessment is one in a series of synthesis and assessment reports coordinated by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
> 
> ...


Humans, Oceans Shaped North American Climate Over Past 50 Years, NOAA Report Says


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Fair enough, but why ignore nearly half the other causes is my question?


The short answer might be that those other causes may be largely beyond human control.

My own frustration with the global warming (oops, not PC - we're s'posed to say "climate change") crowd is the general failure to understand the complexity. People seem to think that warming is a unitary process. There were research papers out of MUN years ago that pointed out the melting the Arctic ice mass would result in a cooling of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream. Data from ocean floor studies was presented to show that 1) this has happened before and 2) has the knock-on effect of severely cooling the climate of Europe to the point of precipitating a(t least one) European ice age. 

The earth is a dynamic living organism. Ironically it is only in the mind of the so-called environmentalists that stasis is an achievable goal. Stasis is almost unknown in nature. Change is the only constant.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Assuming the NOAA report pans out, then again, I ask myself: what is the supposed optimum temperature of the Earth? Clearly the answer isn't: Whatever the Earth throws at you. 

If the Earth were warming or cooling to temperatures humans found uncomfortable entirely through natural mechanisms, would the same alarmists suggest we attempt to change the climate by altering the atmosphere ourselves? Or is the thinking, at it's heart, that any influence caused by humans is--by its very nature--impure and despicable?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Optimal???....the Holocene - range....+/- 2 degrees C for human development of agriculture and civilization- relatively predictable climate regimes.

What's coming in the Anthropocene...what's here now to a small degree
not that stability.

It has nothing to do with the "earth"  - the moon is fine too gonna carry one regardless..... - everything to do with a degree of stability in a variety of climate regimes which humans inhabit...which are currently shifting.

Just what "natural" warming has caused the tropics to expand......pixies with blowtorches????



> *Drought warning as the tropics expand*
> 
> * 19:05 01 February 2009 by Catherine Brahic
> 
> ...


Drought warning as the tropics expand - environment - 01 February 2009 - New Scientist

as a follow up to this from NOAA in 2007 since you now seem a fan.....



> Study: Expanding Tropical Belt Could Affect Climate
> 
> December 3, 2007
> 
> The Earth’s tropical belt – approximately the area between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn – has widened over the past quarter century as the planet has warmed, and could change precipitation patterns that would affect ecosystems, agriculture, and water resources, according to research by a NOAA scientist and colleagues. The findings are published today in the first edition of the new publication *Nature Geoscience*.


NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Study: Expanding Tropical Belt Could Affect Climate

There are of course as always many geosystems at play......bottom line tho .....what keeps the planet habitable - is retaining more energy thanks to fossil carbon and creating climate change.
That energy shows up in many forms.

Try some science....current - just about to be published....step by step...
Climate book
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course we would love the weather--and the climate--to be predictable. Unfortunately, we're just coming out of an unusually stable weather pattern that has dominated for a few decades. Now we're back to notmal.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Of course we would love the weather--and the climate--to be predictable. Unfortunately, we're just coming out of an unusually stable weather pattern that has dominated for a few decades. Now we're back to notmal.


Excellent point! The stable weather patterns that the global warming activists want us to think of as "normal" is in fact an historical ANOMALY!!!!! As I tried to point out above, stasis in nature is the exception rather than the rule.

None of which should taken to mean that humans shouldn't clean up their act. Just remember there are forces at work which are beyond our control.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No MF- a relatively stable climate has been a feature of the Holocene for millenia- you are on way too short a base line. You are trying to make a case that can't be made.

More energy = more extremes and that has been happening steadily.

Of course there are climate forces at work but orbital and quiet solar would normally point to a slow drift towards the next ice age.....that's been delayed or cancelled.
Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels

Evoking some imaginary "natural forcing" is woo.

Circulation patterns and cycles like NAO and and PDO are simply moving energy around....they are not forcings. They neither add nor subtract energy - they can focus the impact - sometimes oddly as with this



> Linking Climate Change in Siberia and Britain


Linking Climate Change in Siberia and Britain

The forcings we DO control are aerosols and GHG - the latter a steady slow energy gain for the geo-systems providing the kick off to a new climate regime, aerosols a wild card that can play out both plus and negative forcing but always on a short time period just as a volcano does.
Both ARE impacting climate, both ARE within our control just as SO2 and ozone depleting chemicals were by international accords and action. Both of those programs averted major problems..neither are 100% resolved.



> Dramatic flips in the climate have occurred in the past but none has happened since the development of complex human societies and civilization, which are unlikely to survive the same sort of environmental changes if they occurred now.
> 
> "Civilization developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end,"


Unlikely anything short of massive geo -engineering which carries its own risks will shift us back to the previous stability.
The genii is loose.

More water management, more flood control, more sea barriers, lots of job opportunities....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I f we have offset an Ice Age, bully for us! I woud do whatever necessary to avoid an Ice Age.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

rgray said:


> As I tried to point out above, stasis in nature is the exception rather than the rule.


In Greece, a _stasis_ is what we would call a _bus stop_...

One would also use a _metaphor_ to move furniture around town... beejacon


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> SINC, I wouldn't have made that remark, if you yourself haven't said in numerous threads about this very subject that you enjoy riling up those who disagree with your denialist theories. That doesn't excuse Macdoc for the insulting tone he takes towards those who disagree with him and I don't think he does his arguments, which I often agree with, any favours by taking that tone. Nor have I made any mention of your personal carbon footprint however great or small it is.
> 
> This is an all too predictable and tiresome thing here. SINC posts something from his climate change denying sources knowing full well that within minutes Macdoc will snatch at the bait and usually go over the top. Tell me truthfully now that you had no idea that you would get such a response from him based on many past experiences. Not an inking? Again I repeat, I don't excuse Macdoc for his reaction.
> 
> As you know, I disagree with your view on climate change but I see little point in having the discussion with you here. I don't choose to feed that game. You are misrepresenting scientific opinion as having been "decided" on every last detail and then after setting up that straw man, you find something anywhere that shows someone doubts something about the nature of the science. This fallacy has been pointed out many times to you also.


You can't really blame Sinc for trying to deny climate change, though. Sinc and I both come from "Central Alberta" (he from St. Albert and I from Sherwood Park), an area of the country that would be quite devastated if the burning of fossil fuels became no longer fashionable. Since we haven't charged enough royalties to the American companies that have quite brazenly taken as much of our "dirty oil" as they can over the last few years, and we are now in the midst of a world-wide recession, and we don't charge a sales tax to offset any lack of income from natural resource royalties, we are running out of options. 

Since we put all of our Albertan eggs in one big oil sands basket and siphoned off any interest our Heritage Fund made during the good times, we are now beginning to suffer an inferiority complex; we are starting to think we are only as good as the rest of the provinces. So rather than admit that global warming or climate change actually exist, we're going to re-brand our image as "Alberta: Freedom to create, spirit to achieve." Whatever that means. So you can understand where our Alberta denial comes from at least. Perhaps we all need a big group therapy session.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: terrific - you made my day.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> So you can understand where our Alberta denial comes from at least. Perhaps we all need a big group therapy session.


I don't think you speak for the majority of Albertans, MacDoc's delight notwithstanding.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> You can't really blame Sinc for trying to deny climate change, though. Sinc and I both come from "Central Alberta" (he from St. Albert and I from Sherwood Park), an area of the country that would be quite devastated if the burning of fossil fuels became no longer fashionable. Since we haven't charged enough royalties to the American companies that have quite brazenly taken as much of our "dirty oil" as they can over the last few years, and we are now in the midst of a world-wide recession, and we don't charge a sales tax to offset any lack of income from natural resource royalties, we are running out of options.
> 
> Since we put all of our Albertan eggs in one big oil sands basket and siphoned off any interest our Heritage Fund made during the good times, we are now beginning to suffer an inferiority complex; we are starting to think we are only as good as the rest of the provinces. So rather than admit that global warming or climate change actually exist, we're going to re-brand our image as "Alberta: Freedom to create, spirit to achieve." Whatever that means. So you can understand where our Alberta denial comes from at least. Perhaps we all need a big group therapy session.


You in no way speak for me and I share little of your thinking. Besides, I "come from" southern Saskatchewan, not Alberta, which demonstrates your lack of knowledge about me when you pretend to speak for me.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> ...we're going to re-brand our image as "Alberta: Freedom to create, spirit to achieve." Whatever that means.


Means that the Alberta Taxpayer is on the hook for huge sum of money with nada in return. The proceeds going to a Stelmach groupie. Shades of the CBCs exploding marigold.

FWIW If offered a $10,000 prize I am sure at least one high school student in AB could have come up with something far better and at a tiny fraction of the cost.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

SINC said:


> And it boggles my mind how you can continue to lash out and be so darn rude when scientists themselves admit they are not sure what is happening. I do not have to take this abuse from you. Post reported.


I have to Admit the Doc needs some prozac or something lately....CHILL OUT DUDE...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I don't think you speak for the majority of Albertans, MacDoc's delight notwithstanding.


Of course I don't speak for the majority of Albertans, because the majority of Albertans are in denial about this The majority of Albertans also seem to honestly believe that electing a PC government in perpetuity is what's best for the province (just as the Alberta business community believes PC computers are the superior platform). But at least we Albertans are predictable, unlike our weather.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> You in no way speak for me and I share little of your thinking. Besides, I "come from" southern Saskatchewan, not Alberta, which demonstrates your lack of knowledge about me when you pretend to speak for me.


Yes, I assume that I in no way speak for you, Sinc. Just trying to get to the bottom of your climate change denial. If you aren't trying to ultimately defend the petrochemical industry and the oilsands, and by extension, our wonderful Albertan way of life, then why say the things you say in direct defiance of science?

And why deliberately poke the hornet's nest unless you are looking for a reaction?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Yes, I assume that I in no way speak for you, Sinc. Just trying to get to the bottom of your climate change denial. If you aren't trying to ultimately defend the petrochemical industry and the oilsands, and by extension, our wonderful Albertan way of life, then why say the things you say in direct defiance of science?
> 
> And why deliberately poke the hornet's nest unless you are looking for a reaction?


I grow tired of that expression about the hornet's nest. When the editors of 14 Canadian dailies deem it an important enough story to feature in the first three pages of their publications, it becomes a mainstream fact that science is admitting they don't know as much as they thought about climate change.

I simply do not believe my posting of the legitimate story deserved such a rude dressing down simply because someone disagreed with the story. (There is reaction and over reaction you know.) Simple debate would have sufficed.

I have stated a thousand times that I accept some of, but not all of, the science concerning the subject.

So go ahead and have another cup of science Kool Aide. I will continue to evaluate the science and decide myself what I believe or not. What I do know, is that science itself has now openly stated it is not sure what up to 49% of the cause really is where it concerns our climate.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max said:


> I've refrained from wading in on this tempest, but today takes the cake.
> 
> MacDoc, I like a lot of your arguments. But your petty, petulant, imperiously arrogant ways are really something else. If you can't have reasoned discourse with people in here, what's your problem? Seems to me you must have a sadly brittle mind if it can brook no disagreement.
> 
> ...


I've refrained from posting anything of any substance here. I said I'd come back after a few days and look over it after I'd cooled my head.

This post I find acutely problematic and perhaps repugnant. I have respect for you Max, so I write this in civility. 

_If you can't have reasoned discourse with people in here, what's your problem? Seems to me you must have a sadly brittle mind if it can brook no disagreement._

Discourse assumes parameters of conversation; where what is said is assumed to exist within a reasonable and accepted intellectual space. This space that MacDoc resides in, is scientific consensus on climate change. That is, climate change is happening, climate change is caused by human activity and GHGs, climate change is a _supra-natural_ pattern. This is academic, peer reviewed, scientific consensus. 

It is long fact that it was and is the tool of the industrial-conservative pact to fabricate ambiguity and lack of consensus among the halls of the research centres and universities. I will not argue that climate change is happening, simply give a run down of the source and impetus of the climate change deniers and the fabrication of "non-consensus within Science."

In early 2007, just as the new international scientific report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was being released, ExxonMobil financed an endowment which to provide a $10,000 grant for each pseudo-scientific paper disputing the findings of the IPCC and the group of more than 2,000 peer-reviewed professional scientists from over 100 countries.

Let us point out what Republican Frank Lutz said when there was concern at a party convention that voters would not support candidates that support de-regulation of polluting industries: "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate..." (FRONTLINE: hot politics: interviews: frank luntz | PBS). 

During the Bush administration, official government reports on climate changed were purged of all information produced by the US Government Organisation, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with information produced by ExxonMobil. The story of this "scientific in-consensus" becomes even richer when you go on to read the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), endorsed by the The Royal Society (U.K. Academy of Science); the the first paragraphs of the executive summary read:



> In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease. As this report documents, the two disinformation campaigns are strikingly similar. ExxonMobil has drawn upon the tactics and even some of the organizations and actors involved in the callous disinformation campaign the tobacco industry waged for 40 years. Like the tobacco industry... The report documents that, despite the scientific consensus about the fundamental under- standing that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions, ExxonMobil has funneled about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncer- tainty on the issue. Many of these organizations have an overlapping—sometimes identical— collection of spokespeople serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors. By publishing and republishing the non-peer-reviewed works of a small group of scientific spokespeople, ExxonMobil-funded organizations have propped up and amplified work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists. ExxonMobil’s funding of established research institutions that seek to better understand science, policies, and technologies to address global warming has given the corporation “cover”...


Report available here: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

The list goes on and on, and indeed on. The main point is that the words of denial come from Big-Oil-Money who fund pseudo-scientific research to disprove the largest international collaboration of scientific research which has produced one coherent package of scientific consensus. Anyone who has spent any considerable amount of time with PhD's will tell you that consensus of this magnitude almost never happens. I cannot say this in purer words: They work to distort the truth.

When we use the word "reasoned," reasonable and reason we assume a foundation of rationalism. That is, that we can make the best decisions for ourselves with information as near to the truth as possible. It is impossible to say that a decision is only rational when it is made with truth because truth is rarely attained, and truth is a complicated notion in terms of inter-subjectivity. However, when we review a situation like the one above, where an obvious agency of collusion, deception and misinformation has been developed and institutionalised, the truth is deliberately being misconstrued. That is, truth is being dissolved and hidden from us. In this context, making a "reasoned" decision is nearly impossible because what the decision we make is not the most rational decision based on information that is nearest to the truth as possible. 

I have become far too philosophical here. The gist of the matter is that you use the word "reasoned" too loosely. You assume that both sides of the debate are being ingenuous; that they are both pursuing truth. This is false. One camp is pursuing truth and the other is foiling the others attempts to get there.

So, if we reconsider your charge against MacDoc for not arguing with "reasoned discourse" you have it wrong. Between MacDoc and SINC, MacDoc is using "reasoned discourse" to communicate. Though he may be abrasive, brash and at times rude, he is nevertheless not arguing from a foundation like the one above. The unreasoned discourse comes uniquely from the industrial-conservative facility.

It is unfortunate to say and I sincerely mean to offence by this, but SINC's arguments seem to have been drawn from this misunderstanding of scientific consensus and the pseudo-scientific reductionist information produced by the industrial-conservative right. 

I'll say it again because I know this conversation has become heated; I mean no personal attacks here, I have tried with as much civility and humility (something I can rarely claim to espouse) as possible to respond to some issues raised here. 

Max, as always, I look forward to your response.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian.: You are simply wrong about the level of consensus and agreement about climate change. This issue has not been settled--in fact has barely been explored. Unfairly classifying all disagreement as a product of "the industrial-conservative right" also does you no service. It's the same as if I suggested that all--not just some--global warmists were granola eaters chanting to Gaia.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Adrian.: You are simply wrong about the level of consensus and agreement about climate change. This issue has not been settled--in fact has barely been explored. Unfairly classifying all disagreement as a product of "the industrial-conservative right" also does you no service. It's the same as if I suggested that all--not just some--global warmists were granola eaters chanting to Gaia.


No.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sorry Adrian. Your words carry no more weight than those of anybody else's opinion here. You believe, then believe. Don't expect everyone else to swallow your homebrew.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

I have to admit I am intrigued by the banter going back and forth on this issue. Many of you make excellent points on both sides. The diversity of opinions is an invaluable tool for attempting to understand the big picture. 

I have scanned the older posts a bit to find the answer to my (next) question, and have found bits and pieces, but so far, nothing complete. Perhaps it's time for an update/synopsis anyways.

Setting aside just for the moment the issue of whether or not climate change is happening, who is responsible for it, etc...

*Presuming you had the ability to make it happen, what action(s), if any, should be taken, and by whom? *

If you have already answered this question, my apologies for asking again.
Addendum: I'm not looking for target practice - I am genuinely curious.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Sorry Adrian. Your words carry no more weight than those of anybody else's opinion here. You believe, then believe. Don't expect everyone else to swallow your homebrew.


Actually MF - the words must have more weight, or you would have ignored them completely. (If you like - I'll leave you the "I could be arguing in my spare time" response - but John Cleese may demand royalty payments!)

Otherwise you would have responded with actual arguments, instead of recursive ad hominem attacks. (though I appreciated the bold-faced grace of the first attempt)

Interesting technique on your part - but not worth any points I'm afraid.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> Actually MF - the words must have more weight, or you would have ignored them completely.


Nonsense. I follow a very specific pattern in my responses. I might have ignored it under other circumstances.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Sorry Adrian. Your words carry no more weight than those of anybody else's opinion here. You believe, then believe. Don't expect everyone else to swallow your homebrew.


Of course they do. It is on no arbitrary basis either, but on philosophical grounds that have deep reach into our political and legal spheres. There is a _reason_ why we have standards of evidence in court rooms.

Nonetheless, I do not speak here to convert the preachers of falsity but only to place some light in their reason less murmurs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Of course they do. It is on no arbitrary basis either, but on philosophical grounds that have deep reach into our political and legal spheres. There is a _reason_ why we have standards of evidence in court rooms.


No. You simply take conviction and call it reason.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Here is what Dr. Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.
> 
> “This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where *there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. *That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”
> 
> ...


*Dr. Richard H. Gammon *
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography 
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
Richard H. Gammon - University of Washington Dept of Chemistry

here you go - email -* [email protected]* tell him it's just "conviction" not science.

Some here seem to think science is a matter of "opinion"...no matter how ill informed they may be regarding the extant knowledge base of the particular aspect of science.

IN science.....informed evidence based knowledge by people in the field and recognized by their peers carries the day.... Dr. Gammon represents that....



> *Research Interests*
> 
> The habitability of the planet depends directly on the radiative/photo-chemical properties of biologically produced trace gases, which together constitute less than a percent of the total atmospheric burden. These trace gases are generally the volatile, often methylated products of microbial metabolic processes occurring in low-oxygen sites in both terrestrial and marine environments. The present atmospheric composition, and consequently the present climate, reflects a balance of the flux of these reduced volatile species (e.g., CH4, CH3SCH3, N2O, reactive hydrocarbons, methyl halides) from microbial sources vs. the subsequent dispersal, photochemical oxidation, and redeposition of degradation products as nutrients to the planetary surface and awaiting microbes. The elucidation of the relevant chemical species, reactions, and fluxes governing the natural recycling of elements essential for life is the primary goal of interdisciplinary research called "biogeochemistry." The controversial hypothesis that the living earth can best be understood as a self-regulating biochemical system which controls, or at least strongly influences, the mean state of the planet has stimulated recent research in which might be called "geophysiology" or "biochemical climatology."
> 
> Research in the Gammon group has been directed toward an improved understanding of the natural and perturbed biogeochemical cycles of C, S and the halogens in relation to climate and climate change. This requires the ongoing development of new and more sensitive analytical methods to measure accurately trace gases at parts-per-trillion-by-volume in both marine and terrestrial environments. In order to understand the cumulative impact of man-made emissions of climate forcing trace species, it is essential to understand the photochemical and climatic balance of the natural system. Recent research has focused on the carbon, sulfur and halogen cycles and the relative contributions of the ocean versus the terrestrial biosphere in determining the global distributions and secular trends of climate-forcing trace gases. Marine and atmospheric trace gas measurements have been made on expeditions aboard NOAA, Coast Guard, and other research vessels. Time series measurements of trace gases are made at the UW Clean Air Facility at the coastal station on the Olympic Peninsula (Cheeka Peak). Ongoing projects includes a stable isotope (D/H) study of the global atmospheric cycling of molecular hydrogen, and an investigation of the natural aquatic and terrestrial sources of the methyl halides (CH3Cl, CH3Br), and the determination of the pre-industrial atmospheric concentration of carbonly sulfide (OCS) from polar ice cores.





> *Representative Publications*
> 
> “Atmospheric 14CO: a tracer of OH concentration and mixing rates.”, P. D. Quay, S. King, D. White, M. Brockington, B. Plotkin, R. Gammon, S. Gerst, and J. Stutsman, J. Geophys. Res., 105 15147 (2000).
> 
> ...


Gammon's knowledge of his field and the recognition of his peers ....HIS comments carry weight for the rest of us.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc, those are cheap theatrics. I never said that some learned people aren't global warmists. But what would it serve us if I began posting resumés of all of the learned scientists who don't support this hypothesis--and provided e-mail addresses daring you to write them. You tried this same theatrical approach about a year back, right down to offering the e-mail address, to no greater effect. 

You used almost the exact same post on the Randi forum last month--to no great effect.

I would be happy to tell the man I don't agree with him, but what point would there be in aggravating him when he undoubtedly has much more important things to attend to as a school teacher?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, those are cheap theatrics. I never said that some learned people aren't global warmists. *But what would it serve us if I began posting resumés of all of the learned scientists who don't support this hypothesis--and provided e-mail addresses daring you to write them.* You tried this same theatrical approach about a year back, right down to offering the e-mail address, to no greater effect.
> 
> You used almost the exact same post on the Randi forum last month--to no great effect.
> 
> I would be happy to tell the man I don't agree with him, but what point would there be in aggravating him when he undoubtedly has much more important things to attend to as a school teacher?


Oh it would be very interesting. It would be even more interesting to see where they receive their funding from.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Stuck on that, "Anyone-who-doesn't-agree-is-in-the-keep-of-Big-Oil" fanatsy again, are we?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

It really does not matter whether or not one agrees with the climate alarmists. Reducing our dependency on oil and coal is vital to the long term future of man.

Even if you believe in global warming and that man is a major contributer, you need to recognize that carbon credits are a scam designed mainly to line traders pockets (including Al Gore's). They will have *little or no *impact on CO2 emissions. They will have a *severe* impact on the living costs of those of us living on fixed incomes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There is this little problem of the ocean acidification you overlook as well...climate be damned there is real immediate risk

Cap and trade is coming....get used to it.
Cap and Trade in 2009 - Sightline Webinar — Sightline Institute
Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer — Sightline Institute

It worked with SO2 .despite the doom sayers.....it will be effective with CO2 as well....










The Cap and Trade Success Story - Global Warming - Environmental Defense Fund

The economic flow is there - energy is $7 trillion a year.....lots of opportunity to shift that to carbon neutral over time..

••

Yep - those on fixed incomes will need help - period....not for those reasons alone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Any move back to the stupidity of carbon credit trading will destroy the economy. If you think it is bad out there now, add carbon taxes and watch a world wide meltdown occur. It is nothing but a scam to line the pockets of the rich and powerful using fear and ignorance as sales tools.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Any move back to the stupidity of carbon credit trading will destroy the economy. If you think it is bad out there now, add carbon taxes and watch a world wide meltdown occur. It is nothing but a scam to line the pockets of the rich and powerful using fear and ignorance as sales tools.


I think you mixed up "carbon credit trading" with "climate change denial" and "oil dependence."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> It really does not matter whether or not one agrees with the climate alarmists. Reducing our dependency on oil and coal is vital to the long term future of man.


I don't even think _that_ is vital. There were no major commissions, global think tanks and tax incentives to move us from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from primarily oil to a broad mix of energy sources. It will happen organically, when the time is right.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

You guys keep beating a dead horse.
There is no doubt that we need to consume less energy and resources, that's a no brainer.
Sure humans are responsible for climate change, so is a deer farting in the woods (does anyone hear it?).
Let the over-reactors do their thing, and the rest of the world worry about something that we can actually do something about.
Just be smart about YOUR actions. It's like religion, believe what ever you think is right, but don't preach your voodoo to the rest of the population.
Be productive in your immediate environment, if everyone does this, those guys won't have anything left to whine about.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Elric said:


> Be productive in your immediate environment, if everyone does this, those guys won't have anything left to whine about.


Excellent advice. Do whatever you think is best, and don't try to force others to live _your_ convictions.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Thanks, I do what I can 
I'm just tired of this being at the top of the list in New Posts when there is no conclusive evidence to either side. The only thing that can be agreed upon is that EVERYTHING affects a change in climate.
And for the record, where I am, it was too bloody cold today to convince ANYONE that went outside of global warming LOL


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Elric said:


> You guys keep beating a dead horse.
> There is no doubt that we need to consume less energy and resources, that's a no brainer.
> Sure humans are responsible for climate change, so is a deer farting in the woods (does anyone hear it?).
> Let the over-reactors do their thing, and the rest of the world worry about something that we can actually do something about.
> ...


Hey, nice 1,000th post. You may just be the smartest guy on the board. If not, you make the most sense of any post in the thread.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> I think you mixed up "carbon credit trading" with "climate change denial" and "oil dependence."


The thing is, I am NOT the one who is mixed up. That honour falls to the fanatics who accept the gospel of climate change without question.

Carbon credit trading is a hazard we have so far avoided, thankfully so.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> It really does not matter whether or not one agrees with the climate alarmists. Reducing our dependency on oil and coal is vital to the long term future of man.





Macfury said:


> I don't even think _that_ is vital. There were no major commissions, global think tanks and tax incentives to move us from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from primarily oil to a broad mix of energy sources. It will happen organically, when the time is right.


It is vital at least to the West and Europe, more to remove the Middle Eastern stranglehold over energy supplies, than for any other reason. As long as the Middle East controls oil supplies it will continue to be a possible flash-point for a nuclear holocaust.

Again Carbon Credit Trading will not do anything to remove this dependence. CCT will rob many seniors of their life savings and even their homes. The proceeds going to Al Gore and his gang of thieves.tptptptp The seniors will then presumably be set adrift on ice flows.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan: One thing the U.S. could do is to exploit its vast coastal oil reserves, but China is taking those aaway from them, while the U.S. feds strangle domestic oil exploration. Utterly suicidal behaviour.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_and another one gone, and another one gone, another one bites the dust...._



> April 6, 2009
> Breakaway ice shelf will reshape map of Antarctic
> Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
> 
> ...


Breakaway ice shelf will reshape map of Antarctic - Times Online

all are gone but a very few in the Arctic ....after being there for 1000s' of years....

SOTC: Sea Ice: September Extents


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> all are gone but a very few in the Arctic ....after being there for 1000s' of years....


Did you think they were going to be there forever???!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Since the earth is millions of years old, ice packs have come and gone naturally for millennia. This is but one more example of such change in the climate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc's own business is located on an environmentally-sensitive area of the Niagara Escarpment that was once under ice cover.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Elric said:


> Thanks, I do what I can
> I'm just tired of this being at the top of the list in New Posts when there is* no conclusive evidence to either side. * The only thing that can be agreed upon is that EVERYTHING affects a change in climate.
> And for the record, where I am, it was too bloody cold today to convince ANYONE that went outside of global warming LOL


Wrong, conclusive evidence exists. There is only one scientific side in this debate and it has met consensus. Fact.

Second page articles out of the Edmonton Journal written by an shock-eager journalist are not scientific fact.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Wrong, conclusive evidence exists. There is only one scientific side in this debate and it has met consensus. Fact.


Consensus among believers only.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let see uninformed "wishful thinking" opinion in one corner..puerile schoolyard snickers included....

Reality on the other...



> *97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans*
> 
> snip
> 
> ...


See the the people that KNOW what they are talking are unconcerned by denidiot noise like the Heartland fiasco..

Met Office: Climate change - the big picture


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Consensus among believers only.


That's the thing. there are thousands of scientists, including many of the foremost experts in climatology, some of whom were lead authors of the IPCC report(s), who do not subscribe to the AGW theory. There has never been any such consensus.

Besides, this is not a popularity contest. Consensus has nothing to do with science, it's a buzzword for political activists and funding trolls.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc, you are simply wrong. In that poll:

1. Only 90% say that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels. (They don't even agree on this.)
2. Only 82% say that human activity been a _significant_ factor in changing mean global temperatures
What kind of a poll is this? What does _significant_ mean? What does _changing_ mean--up or down? They would likely agree that urban heat islands and land use patterns cause temperature shifts.

No mention was made of carbon dioxide. 

Only 3,100 of more than 10,000 scientists polled actually answered the poll. The poll was answered anonymously.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> *Circular Reasoning in the Theory of Manmade Global Warming*
> _April 5th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
> _
> 
> ...


Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service.


FUNDED BY EXXON BABY!

The guy works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Interfaith Stewardship Council, both heavily funded by Exxon and the energy industry.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Competitive Enterprise Institute

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Roy W. Spencer

Thank Reason and Scientific Rationalism for the transparency and accountability the internet espouses.

This is what he said about intelligent design:

_On the subject of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."_


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Adrian. said:


> ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Competitive Enterprise Institute
> 
> ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Roy W. Spencer


A huge LOL is in order towards anyone who thinks that Greenpeace is a credible source of information about anything. What's next, info from PETA about the cattle industry?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

bsenka said:


> A huge LOL is in order towards anyone who thinks that Greenpeace is a credible source of information about anything. What's next, info from PETA about the cattle industry?


They are just presenting the facts. I don't need Greenpeace to tell me that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is funded by ExxonMobil, I know that. Just as the Forestry Industry in Australia created the Responsible Forest Management Coalition (or something along those lines) to promote clear cutting because it made it easier to plan seedling trees. 

I just need Greenpeace to show me that Spencer is working for the Institute. 

The LOL is on you pal. 

I am going after Spencer's journal articles next. I want to see where he fell of his rocker and stopped publishing in academic peer-reviewed journals and starting filling in the blanks for Exxon's reports.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was curious if someone would jump for that bait, but I thank you for doing it Adrian.

By that weak standard, I can now discount the research of all universities that have accepted oil money, even if there is no clear delineation between an individual professor and that money.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> > 97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans


97% of "climatologists" can't even get the next day's weather right 3 days in a row....


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I was curious if someone would jump for that bait, but I thank you for doing it Adrian.
> 
> By that weak standard, I can now discount the research of all universities that have accepted oil money, even if there is no clear delineation between an individual professor and that money.


Well it would depend Macfury, if the professor believed in creationism, sat on councils funded by Exxon with the explicit project of disproving climate change, then I would say so. 

Useless. 

Those minds that are clear will see this collusion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Love conspiracy theorists..reduced to sophistry..we'll hear him questioning the moon landing next....


Meanwhile back in the real world of change....and science.....



> *Ice-free Arctic Ocean possible in 30 years, not 90 as previously estimated*
> April 2nd, 2009
> 
> 
> ...


more
Ice-free Arctic Ocean possible in 30 years, not 90 as previously estimated


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Ice-free Arctic Ocean possible in 30 years, not 90 as previously estimated


See, science was wrong again. Will they ever get it right?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I was curious if someone would jump for that bait, but I thank you for doing it Adrian.
> 
> By that weak standard, I can now discount the research of all universities that have accepted oil money, even if there is no clear delineation between an individual professor and that money.


David Suzuki also receives a lot of funding from energy companies as well. Obviously, he's in their pocket too, right? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

OK, so now we get it. All studies performed by religious individuals in organizations who ever received funding from an energy company are wrong. Thanks for straightening it out Adrian. Very scientific.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Ice-free Arctic Ocean possible in 30 years, not 90 as previously estimated


Yee-haw, Maccy D. Those projections are plum amazing!

The U.S. Army regularly monitors _actual_ sea ice thickness using buoys. Their monitoring equipment shows most Arctic sea ice growing thicker.

buoysum


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing you can say, do, link to, illustrate or otherwise present by which some of the writers on this forum will ever be persuaded. You present a graph or chart, they dismiss it. You find quotes from reputable scientists, they dismiss it. You try to have a discussion wherein both parties can debate and hopefully learning something along the way, they dismiss it. In short, these people are just as fundamentally dogmatic in their belief about the non-existence of climate change as religious fundamentalists are that theirs is the only way to heaven. 

Narrow-mindedness is not the same as scientific detachment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We continually provide new information--they dismiss it. We provide contradictory scientific information--they dismiss it. We provide a graph or chart--they dismiss it. We hope that they will learn something--but they dismiss it. In short, these people are just as fundamentally dogmatic in their belief about the existence of anthropogenic climate change as religious fundamentalists are that there is a hell.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

As John Hodgeman would say, "Touche."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I'm trying to say is that no one study is going to be a "nail in the coffin" of the argument on either side. I am interested in them all, but not willing to accept, on reading, that it will be the final and only word on the matter. 

Even in MacDoc's "consensus" study that supposedly had climatologists on the same page, we could get only 30% of 10,000 scientist responding, and of those, 10% still disagreed that the world has become warmer since the year 1800. So, of 10,000 scientists asked, only 27% responded that the world has definitely gotten warmer since 1800, 3% say it has gotten cooler or remains the same and 70% declined to answer. Doesn't look too good when presented this way.

I've seen many studies suggesting that sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic is growing thinner, thicker, volume remains the same, volume declining, overall decline only if interim data between two set points is dismissed, etc. 

When the overall temperature of the Earth declined over the past 10 years, a major data upset for global warming theorists, we are merely told that we have experienced "the calm before the storm," "our models are getting better," "It's climate change, not warming," "You measured the wrong temperature," "the heat is now trapped on the bottom of the ocean," etc. It's like watching someone hide a little ball under a cup. "You thought you made a good point? Sorry--the ball is under this cup now."

I'm supposed to believe that any scientist who ever worked for an organization that ever accepted money from an energy company can not be trusted. But any school who accepted money from an oil company can be trusted, provided the study supports global warming theory (but maybe not if they have religious views). Similarly, any study funded by Greenpeace is non-partisan.

This debate is NOT over, and anyone who declares that we are already at the point where we just have to decide how to mitigate the CO2 will get little sympathy from me. Similarly, talk of "tipping points" and "we are almost too late to act" get about as much attention from me as "we need to attack Iraq tomorrow" or the world will fall apart.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An excellent post MF, it sums it up nicely. 

Not to mention capping Adrian.'s "oil company sponsorship damns all it touches theory". 

I guess big oil's contributions to medical research, community development and student education makes them all irrelevant and tainted too, does it?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF and the Heartland denidiots versus.



> *International Statements*
> 
> Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change.
> The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh gosh. I can't believe it's true! The last eight times MacDoc posted this quote, I didn't believe it. But the ninth time is the charm it appears.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> MF and the Heartland denidiots
> but of course you know better.....


Some things never change. Although somewhat toned down, the insults still fly with every post ie: "denidiots".

I don't ever recall using the term "believidiots", do you MF?

Another thinly veiled insult and nothing more.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Congratulations MF. One of the most coherent posts to date.

I do suspect studies that are sponsored by big oil. Obviously the guy being paid has real motivation to deliver the requested results. 

I also suspect results from the climate alarmists studies. The potential profits to Al Gore and the like from Carbon Credit Trading would put the Bank Bail Out Scam in the minor leagues.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Some things never change. Although somewhat toned down, the insults still fly with every post ie: "denidiots".


The mark of maturity is the ability to control one's tongue, something that MacDoc has not mastered in all his years.



eMacMan; said:


> I do suspect studies that are sponsored by big oil. Obviously the guy being paid has real motivation to deliver the requested results.


We always have to follow the money, since there's rarely such a thing as pure research any longer. It's all goal-specific and often outcome-specific.

My favourite type of post is one where the climate alarmist points to some oil executive who makes a half-hearted statement supporting some environmental issue and you get a: "See! Even the oil executive sees the truth of it!" The exec was a greedy gibbering fool up until the statement was made, then becomes a stout and hearty fellow--a comrade-in-arms.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The mark of maturity is the ability to control one's tongue, something that MacDoc has not mastered in all his years.


:lmao:

I take offence to calling those with critical cognition and reasoning immature. Reported for attacks on members themselves, not their ideas.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thank you for speaking out on behalf of MacDoc. If he has taken offense, I apologize. I ask no less of him.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing you can say, do, link to, illustrate or otherwise present by which some of the writers on this forum will ever be persuaded. You present a graph or chart, they dismiss it. You find quotes from reputable scientists, they dismiss it. You try to have a discussion wherein both parties can debate and hopefully learning something along the way, they dismiss it. In short, these people are just as fundamentally dogmatic in their belief about the non-existence of climate change as religious fundamentalists are that theirs is the only way to heaven.
> 
> Narrow-mindedness is not the same as scientific detachment.


I certainly agree. I have long thought that the obsession with "Carbon" was nonsense, and leads to all kinds of zealotry and craziness. For instance, they Government wants to plunk down nearly a billion dollars to "sequester carbon", and they have blown almost two billion on a tunnel in Niagara Falls - while in the mean time, spending zilch on smarter social engineering. We have Governments spending the wad on building new white elephants while they are doing nothing to actually reduce the waste that goes on.

But then, logic and thought do not come into the whole gridlock of dogma that goes on. It's all about "global warming" or "ice", or any of the other Suzukiesque mantras that cloud what we really need to do. Pumping "waste" and "carbon" into the ground does not do anything to repair a system of bad social engineering and stupidity that we live with every day. No amount of fears over deserts will pry people out of their cars because no matter how much people would prefer to take a high speed train somewhere - it's never going to happen.

We are doomed because we are unable to utter a coherent and sane statement of what our objectives must be, and until that time when we do, our society will remain being the most wasteful project in history.

Now I am not saying that we have to go live in caves - but at least we should be doing those things that will render real benefits. Like getting some jobs near where people actually live, because most of our problems stem from excessive amounts of commuting. And having some real transit. like a high speed train from Toronto to Montreal, with a ban on flights between those points, so that it will be a guaranteed success. These things can easily be done, and we have the tools - but are too distracted by the want of having more white elephants, and of building more metropolitan disasters like Mississauga (a place where it is pretty much impossible to commute around without a car).

And what's the use of new power plants, when it takes 15-20 years of "environmental studies" and other crass binges of corruption to get a power line from the plant to where people actually will use the power.

But then, that is tiling against the dogmas - remember that ecology is the opiate of the masses of the 21st century...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Oh gosh. I can't believe it's true! The last eight times MacDoc posted this quote, I didn't believe it. But the ninth time is the charm it appears.


The ironic thing is that this crutch of a document says nothing at all about "global warming", only that these nations share the goal of maintaining world temperatures within a 2 degree margin, and that money should be invested in conserving energy and managing resources.

Not one sentence, sentence fragment or phrase (or even a footnote) says that it is imperative that we set up a "carbon market", and all of the other nonsense - nor does it state that there is, in fact, "global warming". The document is neither "for" or "against" global warming - but that there is a consensus that investments need to be made in better social engineering, conservation, smarter living, efficiency and better handling of resources.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> The potential profits to Al Gore and the like from Carbon Credit Trading would put the Bank Bail Out Scam in the minor leagues.


Just like Chretien's AdScam makes Mulroney's Quest for a Spaghetti Restaurant look like small beans...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I take offense to people that postulate we have having Global Warming when it is snowing like whack outside...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

*Science and Consensus*

In the late 1400s the scientific consensus was; that the world was flat even though at least some them were aware of earlier scientists who claimed the world was round.

In the 1500s Copernicus reluctantly put forth his theory that the earth and other planets and stars went around the sun. The consensus was; that the earth was the centre of the universe. Thankfully he died before he could be declared a heretic.

In the 1600s Kepler and Galileo furthered the heliocentric theory, at the expense of their careers. In Galileos case it even led to charges of heresy which the Catholic church finally reversed in the latter half of the 20th century.

Later on the consensus method proved every bit as telling; scientists tenaciously maintaining the sacredness of heliocentricity as it became more and more obvious that Earth and Sun are in the backwaters in the Milky Way galaxy, which in turn is a minor galaxy among billions.

To this day the Bush scientific advisors prefer Biblical explanations to Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

In the 19th and even early 20th centuries scientific consensus held that there had to be another planet inside of Mercuries orbit. It was the only way to explain variations in Mercuries orbit. It took Einstein's Theory of relativity to blast the virtual planet Vulcan from the heavenly skies.

In 1947 an obscure paper was published advancing the theory of Pangea and continental drift. I know of at least one geologist who was ridiculed for accepting that theory as late as mid-1960s.

Today the consensus is that the theory of "Manmade Catastrophic Global Warming" is the absolute truth. Based entirely on computer modeling which ignores some known variables and refuses to even recognize the possibility of unknown variables. Time and again this theory fails to match predictions to new data, the most glaring error being the hockey stick on which the hat of the theory hangs. Still it must be correct because that's the consensus. Forgive my skepticism. Apart from the historical failures of consensus science, in this case the profit motive of Al Gore and other Wannabe Carbon Credit Traders is way too blatantly obvious to overlook. 

The truth is; each new discovery reveals how much more we have to learn. The best way to assure total ignorance is to blindly accept consensus.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan: You can add the consensus belief in the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate matter, which achieved a consensus of 1000 years and was proved time and again in erroneous experiments. Only the diligent efforts of Louis Pasteur overturned that one.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Great post eMacMan and right on the mark. To paraphrase your overview if I may, "believers swallow the bait, hook, line and sinker".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

as I noted earlier....high Arctic was warmer this year despite the La Nina effect on the US and Western Canada



> Arctic winter warmer than average
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> as I noted earlier....high Arctic was warmer this year despite the La Nina effect on the US and Western Canada


..and all within what we refer to as _normal variations in temperature_.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> In the late 1400s the scientific consensus was...


Astounding. Given that the scientific method wasn't even established until the 1600s, that a scientific consensus could be reached so quickly is pretty compelling evidence that these scientists will just _jump_ on any old bandwagon



> ...that the world was flat


You know, I've heard that a lot... there's almost a 'consensus' that it's true (although not a scientific one). Have you got any links or authoritative evidence that such a consensus ever existed (scientific or otherwise). I hate to be a bother, but I like to have evidence to critically evaluate before I draw conclusions... must be that scientific training.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Scientific Method is not required to achieve consensus. Must be that scientific training...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The Scientific Method is not required to achieve consensus. Must be that scientific training...


Without the scientific method, can any consensus be scientific?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Without the scientific method, can any consensus be scientific?


Yes, because scientific endeavour preceded the scientific method. Besides, scientists promoted many aspects of the scientific method centuries before it was codified.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> eMacMan: You can add the consensus belief in the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate matter, which achieved a consensus of 1000 years and was proved time and again in erroneous experiments. Only the diligent efforts of Louis Pasteur overturned that one.


I also suspect that the current consensus about dark matter may be overthrown by a theory that expands on relativity in a manner similar to the way relativity expands on gravity. Perhaps we will also discover evidence that there have been multiple or even simultaneous Big Bangs.

Who knows; That's what makes science so interesting and it's also why even our favourite theories should be taken with a grain of salt.

EDIT: The 1692 Salem Witchcraft Trials are another great example. The learned elders of Salem Mass., reached a clear consensus that witchcraft was real. Not only real but such a threat to the community that many harmless women were sacrificed on the alter of consensus.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Yes, because scientific endeavour preceded the scientific method. Besides, scientists promoted many aspects of the scientific method centuries before it was codified.


A simple examination of some of DaVinci's notes will confirm that. Not to mention some of Keplers rather astounding observations.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> Without the scientific method, can any consensus be scientific?


Consensus has nothing to do with science. Consensus is popular opinion, regardless of the facts. Opinions vary, the truth remains.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> In the late 1400s the scientific consensus was; that the world was flat even though at least some them were aware of earlier scientists who claimed the world was round.
> 
> In the 1500s Copernicus reluctantly put forth his theory that the earth and other planets and stars went around the sun. The consensus was; that the earth was the centre of the universe. Thankfully he died before he could be declared a heretic.
> 
> ...


Except that the one difference between then and now, is that as far as I know, we don't have one 'heretic' scientist from the 1400s putting forth a theory.

Nice story though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Except that the one difference between then and now, is that as far as I know, we don't have one 'heretic' scientist from the 1400s putting forth a theory.
> 
> Nice story though.


No, instead we have thousands of heretics.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, instead we have thousands of heretics.


and they're all out to get you MF.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> and they're all out to get you MF.


Why would they want to do that? Perhaps you misunderstood the post.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

your right. Hold on, lemme get my tinfoil hat...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> your right. Hold on, lemme get my tinfoil hat...


Nobody here has suggested you wear a tinfoil hat. I think you misunderstood the post.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> You know, I've heard that a lot... there's almost a 'consensus' that it's true (although not a scientific one). Have you got any links or authoritative evidence that such a consensus ever existed (scientific or otherwise). I hate to be a bother, but I like to have evidence to critically evaluate before I draw conclusions... must be that scientific training.
> 
> Cheers


Give this one to Bryan. 

I am annoyed by this canard too. There existed a scientific community of sorts, assisted greatly by the general use of latin, and their did perhaps exist a concensus of the masses, but the twain never met. No academic worth his salt has subsribed to the flat earth theory for the past two millennia. I personally think it has something to with laying more wreaths before Columbus than he actually deserved, popularized during (as late as) the 20th c. (you know, the old story about him proving that he wouldn't fall off into space once reaching the horizon; I think Bugs Bunny did a short on that).

Careful lads: falsus in unum falsus in omnibus.

For reference:

Members of the Historical Association (1945). Common errors in history. General Series, G.1. London: P.S. King & Staples for the Historical Association

Studies in the History of Science


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Excellent and enjoyable article, chasMac.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Thanks Chasmac

Interesting article. I never gave the matter much thought but I too believed the early church taught the earth was flat. It amazing how this myth has propagated. Especially among those claiming higher intelligence. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I too believed, that consuming like a mofo, driving cars around as much as I like, leaving the lights on, spraying my hair with copious amounts of hairspray, wouldn't have any effect on our atmosphere, our air, our environment. I'm sure for much of the early 20th century, and some of the latter, most people believed. Much like people thought the earth was flat.

It's utterly amazing, to see people who seem to me to be reasonably intelligent, just falling over themselves with glee, when they announce that a great deal of what happens in our environment, our climate, isn't the result of man's actions.

Well holy snot. Hold the presses there's synapses a'firin...

Next you'll be yellin the earth is round.


Don't mind me... Testify!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Putting CO2 to levels not seen in 650,000 years IS tho
....amongst other things.....

and that puts the cat in the previously docile pigeons....


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> I too believed, that consuming like a mofo, driving cars around as much as I like, leaving the lights on, spraying my hair with copious amounts of hairspray, wouldn't have any effect on our atmosphere, our air, our environment. I'm sure for much of the early 20th century, and some of the latter, most people believed. Much like people thought the earth was flat.
> 
> It's utterly amazing, to see people who seem to me to be reasonably intelligent, just falling over themselves with glee, when they announce that a great deal of what happens in our environment, our climate, isn't the result of man's actions.
> 
> ...


Sorry for setting you off but I'm not sure what to make of that post? How my post relates to you 'consuming like a mofo" or using "lots of hairspray" leaves me bewildered.
It was off topic but I was merely making comment on the revelation in chasmacs post how the flat earth myth is propagated. Self identified "brights" like Dawkins and many on this board use that lie all the time. I've heard it so much myself I assumed it was true. I just expected "brights" to debate with superior intellect and not with the most fantastic lies. 

Anyhow sorry for derailing this thread. Back to global warming.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Putting CO2 to levels not seen in 650,000 years IS tho
> ....amongst other things.....
> 
> and that puts the cat in the previously docile pigeons....


This is only if you accept ice core data as completely reliable. We're not really sure of the effect that pressure plays on CO2 retention. We also have plenty of CO2 data taken by scientists in the 1800s--most of which was dismissed as "unreliable" because it failed to fit into the preconceived curve expected by anthropogenicists. Many of those readings showed concentrations of between 350 and 400 ppm.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Sorry for setting you off but I'm not sure what to make of that post? How my post relates to you 'consuming like a mofo" or using "lots of hairspray" leaves me bewildered.
> It was off topic but I was merely making comment on the revelation in chasmacs post how the flat earth myth is propagated. Self identified "brights" like Dawkins and many on this board use that lie all the time. I've heard it so much myself I assumed it was true. I just expected "brights" to debate with superior intellect and not with the most fantastic lies.
> 
> Anyhow sorry for derailing this thread. Back to global warming.
> ...


My post had everything to do with the topic of the thread. It's just you disagree is all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He didn't understand your post GT and then gets all defensive.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well generally when someone disagrees with you on a forum, it can often lead to them saying you're jst angry, or where did that rage come from, or what set you off, etc etc etc.

Sometimes, an opinion just is. I'm always amazed how a handful could post opinions, complete with innuendos, of the stupidity of those who disagree, you know, the ones who 'fall for' silliness, pettiness, and then get all huffy when someone bites back a wee.

Well time for a second cup and off I go.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

"Each time you order a book online or download an MP3 song, a lump of coal is burned somewhere in America. And that wireless Palm VII you swear by and put little batteries into? It eats up power like a refrigerator-up to 1,000 kilowatt hours a year (kWh/y)-when all the devices it connects to are taken into consideration."

If you die hards truly believe your theories, you should probably stop wasting the worlds resources trying to preach your "facts" on the internet.

Considering this (currently 14 pages) is just a tennis match with dog poo as the ball, it's not only pointless, but my neck is getting sore watching the match.

All any of us can do is conserve, and it looks like the doomsday group is wasting more energy than anyone else by preaching, seems hypocritical if ask me (but no one did).


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Elric said:


> "Each time you order a book online or download an MP3 song, a lump of coal is burned somewhere in America. And that wireless Palm VII you swear by and put little batteries into? It eats up power like a refrigerator-up to 1,000 kilowatt hours a year (kWh/y)-when all the devices it connects to are taken into consideration."
> 
> If you die hards truly believe your theories, you should probably stop wasting the worlds resources trying to preach your "facts" on the internet.
> 
> ...


But not as hypocritical as Al Gore whose electrical consumption is 20x the national average even when he isn't preaching, and who has also positioned himself to make $Billion$$$$$ should Carbon Credit Trading become a reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not even getting into this whole "consuming energy is shameful" mentality in the first place. It's only shameful if you tell people not to do it, then do it yourself.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah the pearls of wisdom never ceases to flow.

Well done!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I love the "think small" mentality that's gripped people these days. I think dogs will take over when people start living in straw huts again.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

You have to love the doomers - since they are the ones worrying about global warming by prognosticating it on their eight processor, two cinema screen with all the works systems.

I, for one, do think that global warming is a potential problem, but that the root problem is not "Carbon" or the need for crazy carbon trading - but that we just pollute too much. We just squander too many things we do not need to squander, and that we have to start living smarter and more efficiently.

Something like the Palm above demonstrates something, not in that it uses energy, but that the vast majority of people that use them simply waste them, and never use them to any kind of potential. It does not make people "more efficient", just like day-timers never made anyone "more efficient". Only with the use of the brain can people choose to live more intelligent lives.

On-line bookstores and downloaded music is a result of being stupid. If bookstores had continued to sell books of interest, and had clerks that knew what they were doing, and the same with music stores that sold music of interest and had clerks that knew the business - then online would have been a dud. But in the quest for greed, stores decided to hire for minimum wage and treat employees in the worst manner possible. This lead to a decline in the quality of the workers, which was a vicious circle because it opened the door entirely to on-line sales. And with everyone buying dribs and drabs from places that are far away, we use much more energy, and hence, much more waste, to do what was better done in the "old days" when we had things like book stores and music stores.

My main problem with the whole religion of Carbon is that it detracts humanity away from the very real problems of waste, pollution and dumb social engineering. We end up trying to fix a symptom rather than abolishing the root problem. And most of the waste is in the small things. But Governments are not interested in the small things - they want the White Elephant. So instead of spending a few million to get an actual train running between Hamilton and Toronto - they'd rather spend it on numerous luncheons, consultants reports, and collossal Elephants like the 2 Billion Dollar Tunnel, or a new Nuclear plant that will have a 500% cost overrun. And in that, we forget that the root of the problem is waste and pollution - we cleave off Carbon and forget all of the rest of the junk that will kill us off long before CO2 turns us into baked Venus...


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> the same with music stores that sold music of interest and had clerks that knew the business - then online would have been a dud. But in the quest for greed, stores decided to hire for minimum wage and treat employees in the worst manner possible. This lead to a decline in the quality of the workers, which was a vicious circle because it opened the door entirely to on-line sales. And with everyone buying dribs and drabs from places that are far away, we use much more energy, and hence, much more waste, to do what was better done in the "old days" when we had things like book stores and music stores.


I would agree as long as you specify CHAIN STORES. Independent Stores are phenomenal in the way that they DO carry the good stuff, and the staff are very intelligent in their respective areas.

But alas, this is off topic, but it struck a nerve (I run a New and Used Music store (Movies and Games included)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Back to the main subject.

A review of ice ages is in order. We are currently in an extended ice age. The latest glacial advance was about 12,000 years ago and pretty much ALL of Canada was under as much as a mile of ice and snow. Since that time the glaciers have been retreating with the vast majority of the melt occurring before man had any significant impact on the environment. 

Based on recent geologic history it is quite likely that glaciers will soon start to advance again as peaks tend to occur at 10-15000 year intervals. 

One major cause of warming is under water volcanic activity which warms the oceans which in turn warms the planet. CO2 is released from the oceans in the process.

CO2 is responsible for only 3% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is roughly 85-90%. Man's CO2 contribution is fairly minor although we are responsible for major deforestation which does significantly reduce the planets ability to reabsorb CO2. Beyond that some studies indicate that as CO2 reaches current levels, there is a saturation effect. That is more CO2 does not increase the greenhouse effect.

Clearly our money should not be spent expanding the contents of the Al Gore vault. It should be spent adapting to the current climate. If the current melt period extends a while longer that could mean relocating entire cities or at the very least turning them from basement & road style cities to Venice style.

Should the polar ice caps start to expand again. Canada may be forced by necessity to invade and steal a sizeable chunk of the USA. Not impossible just look at what Israel has done to it's neighbours since 1967.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Elric said:


> I would agree as long as you specify CHAIN STORES. Independent Stores are phenomenal in the way that they DO carry the good stuff, and the staff are very intelligent in their respective areas.
> 
> But alas, this is off topic, but it struck a nerve (I run a New and Used Music store (Movies and Games included)


Unfortunately, Hamilton is devoid of such stores, and the few that were around a year ago have ceased to exist. After attempting to do Christmas shopping in the usual manner last year, that is, by going to actual stores to find out that either they don't have anything, or they just plain refuse to help me at all - I see the merits of online shopping because frankly, I'd rather click on check boxes and wait for a courier than to go through the bad treatment that is usual at stores. And the surprising thing is, the best service I did have was at Future Schlop - which tell you how bad customer service is in the Golden Horseshoe. But then again, outside of driving out to the Reserve for new Apple equipment or trekking to Toronto for used - we don't even have a computer shop in town (at least one that isn't a front for some mafia operation).

And so I make my contribution to Global Warming, by having to make regular treks to Toronto to buy things, like computer parts, cables, CDs, etc. that are just not sold in these parts.

I wish we has ore real stores with real employees, but then, they would have to hire decent people, which just doesn't happen in this day and age. When I was in retail, no manager would hire someone good because it was a "threat", so they were happy being the worst store around because corporate would have to flip the bill for safety violations and profit loss.

But I still think that the religion of Global Warming has little actual merit, since those who make the decisions are hell bound to build some giant White Elephant. On the Radio they were talking about all of this nuclear power that we are somehow going to need to power all of the factories that are closed. And they really did go to town on anything "green" - it was all about "protecting" AECL and embarking on a disaster that will have at least a 500% cost overrun.

Not that there is anything wrong with nuclear power, but until we get out mind around the fact that the only practical nuclear power will come from fast breeder reactors that use up the nuclear waste, and stop being fixated on weapons grade plutonium - it is just a lead balloon flying high and above another Ontario Hydro White Elephant, that we will pay for for the next thousand years.

They were also going on about government interference in the car industry. I agree that governments can't run car companies, but the turkeys at GM and Chrysler proved that the car people can't run them either. And what's with the GM/Segway? There's a practical vehicle for Canadian roads - bound to cost us billions in health care with all of the frostbite cases. Meanwhile, neither GM or Chrylser make an efficient 4 cylinder vehicle for the market, but we have the one of frostbitemobile and the Chevy Volt vapourmobile that will never be at a dealership near you.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Another thing missing from the alarmists models, is the effect of the thinner ozone layer. This is at least partially man caused and will be with us for a many more decades. One of the things the Ozone layer does is block a portion of solar radiation. Seems quite likely that the thinned Ozone layer may be having a much more dramatic impact than CO2 emissions. 

Good news we have stopped manufacturing destructive CFCs. Bad news the existing CFCs will continue to bleed into the atmosphere for another 3-5 decades. Also since this is a chain reaction, destructive CFCs currently in the Ozone Layer will continue doing damage for many years to come.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Even that is up for debate, since until this month, we have not had a regular means of collecting ozone layer data. A thinning of the ozone layer means that more UV enters the lower atmosphere - which works to destroy the very chemicals that destroy the ozone layer, and more UV means more ozone. The "holes" that appeared a few years ago ended up disappearing, and the whole cycle is up for scientific debate. However, we do have much more surface ozone pollution - and that is caused by living stupid lifestyles that can't be sustained.

The other thing that I can't figure out is that this City is more polluted now that all of the companies have folded - than twenty years ago when the companies were going whole hog - though next to a few smelly days last summer, nothing was as bad as 1972 - when we had the highest possible pollution coupled with a garbage strike.

Of course, "going metric" threw things off of the track because in the "old days", a pollution count of 32 was "Very Poor" - but now, the alert level is 50 - which means we have less pollution days per year (though those days are crippling).

The problem wasn't so much with CFC's, but our wasteful use of them - through shoddy workmanship on car air conditioners, and in refrigerators that were so shoddy they didn't last. But then the whole industry cried and wailed, saying that there would be no replacements, and that HFC's were "no good" - but voila, the conversion was entirely successful. It was nothing more than crying about having to spend some cash on upgrades, which would lead to smaller profits for a given quarter. 

The same thing with cars - GM and Chrysler cry that they can't adopt technology because they haven't squeezed every dram of profits out of their obsolete V-8 engines from the 1960's...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EP: DuPont had a replacement ready and they were one of the companies to donate money to the efforts to convert from CFCs to HFCs. Unlike global warmists, I'm not saying that their involvement invalidated efforts on behalf of the ozone layer, but it's typical of companies crying foul until they find a way to shake more money from consumers' pockets.


----------



## frankyg (Sep 9, 2009)

We are causing a bit of it though if not most. Renewable energy is the answer regardless if not for the planet, then for us. Here are some great resources on solar, wind ect.

YouTube - MrKeepthelightson's Channel


----------

