# Global Warming eh?



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here are some new stats that would seem to belie the gloabal warming fear mongers campaign.

“This past month was the coolest April in 11 years for the lower 48 United States, and fell into the lowest twenty-five percent of all Aprils based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C”

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: U.S. Has Cool April, Global Temperature Ranked 13th Warmest on Record

Let the believers chew on that for a while.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Wait until the dog days of July!

We did go from El Nino to La Nina, so one must expect the oddest of things. For myself, I will know we have global warming when Churchill becomes the hub of the corn belt...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Global Highlights
> 
> April’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature was *0.74 degrees F (0.41 degrees C) above the 20th century mean* of 56.7 degrees F (13.7 degrees C).
> 
> *Continued weakening of La Niña, the cold phase* of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, occurred during April. The global average ocean surface temperature in April was the ninth warmest on record, with a monthly anomaly of 0.59 degrees F (0.33 degrees C) above the 20th century mean.


Despite a near to record LaNina

April was STILL the 13th warmest ...



> NOAA: U.S. Has Cool April, *Global Temperature Ranked 13th Warmest on Record*


chewed on 





















Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

give the denial nonsense a rest .......

a few cool months in some areas due to an known ENSO variation is a meaningless blip in the AGW established, measured trends.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

I think some people need a better understanding of global warming and what it means. It is far more complex than just higher temperatures world wide.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

They are displaying the "I'm all right Jack" syndrome.

Tres short-sighted.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It is far more complex than just higher temperatures world wide.


Actually it's not.
The CONSEQUENCES and regional impacts are indeed complex as is the rate of change over time in various regions.

The warming itself on a global scale is straight forward and "irrefutable".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When cooler AND warmer temperatures are all a result of "anthropognic climate change" it makes no sense to argue with the prophets of doom. It's like saying that the stock market is going both up and down tomorrow--then bragging you were right.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Actually it's not.
> The CONSEQUENCES and regional impacts are indeed complex as is the rate of change over time in various regions.
> 
> The warming itself on a global scale is straight forward and "irrefutable".


I believe that is what I was trying to say...however poorly I did lol


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The warming itself on a global scale is straight forward and "irrefutable".


It's irrefutable I tells ya, ya consarned varmints!!!


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

So I guess when the world was a warmer place than now, say about the year 1000, it must have been because of the Vikings making campfires?
Point is, the world's average temperature fluctuates naturally, even if people did not exist.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

That might work, *if people remained static*.

I have news for you. They are now everywhere, and they are all burning something or other.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Slaw: One of our ice ages occurred when carbon levels were more than double the concentration of today.


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

The problem with that first chart in this thread is it only looks back perhaps a 125 years or so. Take a look at this one and you'll see that, like I said earlier, global temperatures go up and down through the ages, and they do so even when humans contributed very little to adding "greenhouse gases".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

love your "scientific sources" 



> The short answer is, its a website run by two guys named *Cliff Harris and Randy Mann* which, among other things, and for $129 U.S. (per year?), advises clients on "profitable weather commodity trades" and "highlights the major commodity markets that have been and will be affected by Ma Nature's wild ways in recent years."
> 
> It also hosts some pretty graphs (see above) which, according to NuzeBuzzster's Noel Sheppard, Al Gore doesn't want you to see.
> 
> ...


Let's see, Science Academies around the world or a couple of fundie goofballs.......

sterling fellow travellers you have there MF....about typical for you

as for your "claim" - care to prove it or did you conveniently forget about Milankovitch cycles.??



> Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases
> 
> ScienceDaily (May 17, 2008) — The newest analysis of trace gases trapped in Antarctic ice cores now provide a reasonable view of greenhouse gas concentrations as much as 800,000 years into the past, and are further confirming the link between greenhouse gas levels and global warming, scientists reported May 14 in the journal Nature.
> 
> ...


No sun forcing
No orbital forcing

only anthropogenic forcing.......get over it.
Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases


of course the biosystems affected get onwith adapting - or disappearing - guess they are not listening to you ......



> NASA Study Links Earth Impacts To Human-Caused Climate Change
> 
> by Lockergnome on May 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm · Comments
> Categorized by Environment / Related Information
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, it just goes to show: if your idea is to expose charlatans and bad science, there's nothing better than using your own charlatans and bad science.


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

Look, all I'm saying is global temperatures change over time. If people did not exist at all temperatures would still rise or fall over time.
Maybe the global warming crowd ought to try to pass some new environmental laws such as one that would ban the Sun from ever varying in it's energy output and maybe a bill that would outlaw volcanic eruptions.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

The earth is just going to incinerate us. We are no longer welcome.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> No sun forcing
> No orbital forcing
> 
> only anthropogenic forcing.......get over it.


Those articles DO NOT make the conclusion of no sun or orbital forcing, nor do they conclude warming is caused by anthropogenic forcing.  

Rather, all they demonstrate is a correlation between temperature and greenhouse gases.

Please show where causation is demonstrated.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

This might help you conceptualize MacDoc.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

My pants are the cause of global warming.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Cole Slaw said:


> Look, all I'm saying is global temperatures change over time.


Very good. That puts you in at least the junior high school level of understanding with respect to climatology.

Now, if you'd like to debate with the thousands of professional scientists who've published countless peer-reviewed studies in the most reputable and rigorous scientific journals over the past few decades on the topic, you need to spend a decade or so in graduate school getting up to speed on what is already known, how it is known, what is not known, and how to find out more before you can claim to know better than these folks.

I certainly don't mind everyone having their opinions, but not all opinions are created equal. If I'm going to build a bridge, I'll value the opinions of a civil engineer above those of a biologist. If I want to know what the cause of global warming is, the unprecedented consensus of climatologists around the world is a pretty compelling argument.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Very good. That puts you in at least the junior high school level of understanding with respect to climatology.


You always forget to mention your extreme bias regarding climatology, is that you too, are a self admitted "scientist" and prone to believe the spin of your own kind.

That fact alone diminishes your credibility to those of us who have no faith, nor belief in your particular brand of snake oil.

But you knew that, didn't you?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> You always forget to mention your extreme bias regarding climatology, is that you too, are a self admitted "scientist" and prone to believe the spin of your own kind.
> 
> That fact alone diminishes your credibility to those of us who have no faith, nor belief in your particular brand of snake oil.
> 
> But you knew that, didn't you?


Oh ya! SINC 1 other guy 0.

My man.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> you too, are a self admitted "scientist"


Yes...*sob*... it's true. But the first step towards solving a problem is admitting you _have_ a problem. Right?



> You always forget to mention your extreme bias


Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the concept of "the scientific method"?

Anything that human beings do is going to be susceptible to bias. The scientific method was developed to compensate for this.



> That fact alone diminishes your credibility to those of us who have no faith, nor belief in your particular brand of snake oil.


What I know is that science requires no faith, and that I have none. If the evidence and the logic is compelling, I have no choice but to believe. Without evidence and compelling logic, I remain skeptical.

You seem to have made up your mind, regardless of evidence and in complete ignorance of the logic, but I'll give you this much: at least you don't "admit" to being a scientist.

Cheers


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Vandave said:


> This might help you conceptualize MacDoc.


Arrrr, that is one boat I can get on, MD hurry and ye be me first matey.:lmao:


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

One way to help in the fight against global warming might be to kill off the moose population. It seems one moose produces as much greenhouse gases per year as driving 13,000 kilometres.
Link:Global Warming Fears: Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
Just another example of how foolish this is all getting.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Cole Slaw said:


> One way to help in the fight against global warming might be to kill off the moose population. It seems one moose produces as much greenhouse gases per year as driving 13,000 kilometres.
> Link:Global Warming Fears: Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
> Just another example of how foolish this is all getting.


I never did trust that Bullwinkle.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Cole Slaw said:


> One way to help in the fight against global warming might be to kill off the moose population.


Now that, I'll agree, is really silly.

There's no question that there are lots of non-human sources of GHGs, and there's no question that there are a lot of factors *other* than what we do that impact global climate. 

What I find hard to believe is that there seem to be lots of people in the general population (several of whom post here with some regularity) who seem to think that the professional scientists who've spent their careers studying global climate are all somehow unaware of this and not taking it into consideration.

All that stuff is part of the models, and it does a great job of explaining global temperature variation *until after the industrial revolution, at which point natural causes are no longer able to explain the changes in temperature and atmospheric GHGs observed*. There is still lots of room for improved understanding, and it may turn out that the impact of human fossil fuel consumption will be smaller, or larger, than we currently think it is. But there is very little doubt that we have, and are continuing to have and effect on the global climate.

Finally, and to me most importantly, there is the precautionary principle to consider. If it turns out that all the scientists are wrong, and there really is nothing to worry about, but we go ahead and develop renewable energy sources and adapt our economy to be less dependent on non-renewable resources, how would that be a bad thing? In contrast, if it turns out that the scientists are right (again), but we ignore the warning (again) and keep on pumping vast quantities of GHGs into the atmosphere, setting off catastrophic global climate changes, apart from having made a few billionaires somewhat richer, how would that be a good thing?

What frustrates me about this 'debate' is that it's such an obvious no-brainer, but we don't seem to be able to reach the obvious conclusion. 

Cheers


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

Take a look at this link, bryanc:
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
According to that, only a small proportion of greenhouse gases are man-made.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Cole Slaw said:


> Take a look at this link, bryanc:
> Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
> According to that, only a small proportion of greenhouse gases are man-made.


I checked the link, and after just a brief skim I was seeing all sorts of things that were setting off my skepticism alarms. So I googled the site's author (Monte Hieb) to see what his credentials were. It turns out he's not a climatologist, but is an engineer who works for a ... (wait for it)... _coal mining company_. Do you find it as shocking as I do that someone completely untrained in climatology would put up a web site claiming to debunk global warming by using refuted arguments just to defend the industry that employs them?

I suggest you look for sources that have been peer-reviewed by actual credentialed scientists, rather than fossil fuel industry shills.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Finally, and to me most importantly, there is the precautionary principle to consider. If it turns out that all the scientists are wrong, and there really is nothing to worry about, but we go ahead and develop renewable energy sources and adapt our economy to be less dependent on non-renewable resources, how would that be a bad thing? In contrast, if it turns out that the scientists are right (again), but we ignore the warning (again) and keep on pumping vast quantities of GHGs into the atmosphere, setting off catastrophic global climate changes, apart from having made a few billionaires somewhat richer, how would that be a good thing?


It's a bad thing if we:
* Tax ourselves to death doing it. 
* Cripple the transportation sector
* Waste valuable resources on a canard.
* Pump billions of dollars into other countries buying so-called carbon credits.
* Cripple our standards of living.
* Give up our freedom in the cause of a fraud.

I've asked this of people before--if they believed that we were heading into an ice age, would they increase the productions of GHGs to warm up the planet. Lots of hemming an hawing there. We only stop humans from producing CO2, we are not allowed to "control the world's climate" by producing extra GHGs even if it is to our benefit to stop an ice age.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It's a bad thing if we:
> * Tax ourselves to death doing it.
> * Cripple the transportation sector
> * Waste valuable resources on a canard.
> ...


Seems rather alarmist.

Isn't it the other side that is supposed to be running about with the hand waving and the alarmist rhetoric?

Where's my scorecard...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman: It's not a call to alarm. It's an example of "why it could be a bad thing." Australians just woke up to the fact that their "carbon tax" increases business taxes by more than 40%. That's not alarmist--it's actually happening.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> *Do you find it as shocking* as I do that someone completely untrained in climatology would put up a web site claiming to debunk global warming by using refuted arguments just to defend the industry that employs them?


Not really.

Disinformation is rife these days.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Do you find it as shocking as I do that someone completely untrained in climatology would put up a web site claiming to debunk global warming by using refuted arguments just to defend the industry that employs them?


No more shocking than "climate scientists" making predictions of just the type that will maintain the interest and funding of those who employ them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

You hae insinuated this now several times.

are all scientists who support the climate change 'side' on a payroll of someone who will benefit in billions of $$?

List all the 'climate change' major scientists (and there is a pretty large list) who are on the payroll of someone who stands to make billions from it.

No, not 2, not 5. All of them.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> eggman: It's not a call to alarm. It's an example of "why it could be a bad thing." Australians just woke up to the fact that their "carbon tax" increases business taxes by more than 40%. That's not alarmist--it's actually happening.


First cut is the deepest.

The only model that is going to work is if people implement massive change now, and then relax the standards later, enacting forgiveness to those countries and companies who've enacted change but are feeling the pinch because of it.

If we keep doing like we are doing now, we will never even start the reform. We'll be creating bureaucracy and likely we'll just relax the standards to a point where they'll have done more harm than good. Over the long run it could conceivably cost countries more to keep delaying the start date for real change.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> eggman: It's not a call to alarm. It's an example of "why it could be a bad thing." Australians just woke up to the fact that their "carbon tax" increases business taxes by more than 40%. That's not alarmist--it's actually happening.


And it is (if it actually *is*) an inconvenience. So I will grant you MF a "bad thing" by some people's definition. If you want to eat fresh tomatoes in February they are more expensive - a cost of doing business, or of eating tomatoes. 

But MF - you present these "conclusions" without the necessary "if"s - implying that there is somehow data to back them up, they they are somehow inevitable and somehow bad.

Seems that SINC and company should step in here and call "crap science".

It appears that the debate may be operating with two different standards of proof.

I thought of this as I was walking past the "Starved Buggy Whip Makers Memorial Garden" this morning - we may have to change the way things are done - this always happens, and there are always people afraid of change. The economy (how ever that particular thing works - as if anyone actually knows) will change as well.


NOTE: No buggy whip makers were starved in the creation of this post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> You hae insinuated this now several times.
> 
> are all scientists who support the climate change 'side' on a payroll of someone who will benefit in billions of $$?
> 
> ...


Most people don't need a billion dollar pay-off--they just want to keep their jobs.

Then there's the contingent eho just loves the idea of a central planning body to control industry and tell people how they should live--all they want is to be part of the new beureaucracy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

cap10subtext said:


> The only model that is going to work is if people implement massive change now, and then relax the standards later, enacting forgiveness to those countries and companies who've enacted change but are feeling the pinch because of it.


Completely unproven. The models are designed to predict certain outcomes. Even people like Dr. James Hansen (the guy who convinced "algore" to get on his eco-high horse) has said that concentrating on carbon dioxide is a huge error.

Hansen advises emphasis be placed on:

* Black carbon (soot like that produced by diesel buses)
* Methane (from landfill sites)
* Ozone--from various easily controllable sources

Even if I don't believe they will cause global warming/cooling, at least I can identify these as having significantly negative effects on human health.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> I thought of this as I was walking past the "Starved Buggy Whip Makers Memorial Garden" this morning - we may have to change the way things are done - this always happens, and there are always people afraid of change.


Who is afraid of change? Fear of stupidity is another matter. The global warming fad will wind up in magazines 20 years from now in the "What were we thinking" category, along with the new high-waisted jeans.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Most people don't need a billion dollar pay-off--they just want to keep their jobs.
> 
> Then there's the contingent eho just loves the idea of a central planning body to control industry and tell people how they should live--all they want is to be part of the new beureaucracy.


that's what I thought.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> My pants are the cause of global warming.


Or at least some localized toxicity that needs to be looked at by Team 1 Environmental... :lmao: beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The World Bank is just loving the huge commissions they're pulling on selling carbon credits. Industry is hopping aboard whenever they see a buck to be made as well. I really was amused at the huge commission they received on the carbon credit that supported construction of coal-fired electricity plant being built in India.

Dow Chemical was happy to outlaw CFCs because the replacement chemical they were ready to manufacture cost a little more. Look at their sponsorship of the original CFC petitions. Whether they agreed with the science is irrelevant--they saw an opportunity to sell customers a higher-priced product, with government approval.

Once industries figure out a way to make enough cash from the global warming canard, they'll all be in line at the cash register, with the government backing them up in soaking consumers.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Amusing.

First, it's all 'the world economy will crash because of this climate change fraud'.

Now, it's the whining that there's money to be made from going green.

Gee I wonder where I heard that notion before...

lmao.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: I suspect you msy be misunderstanding the economics. The world's economy will not collapse. It will become more inefficient. A 40% increase in businesses taxes due to carbon taxation in Australia will be passed on to the consumer and make Australian exports less marketable internationally. It won't destroy Australia, but it will impoverish its people.

If people believed that products they purchase needed to be passed through a magnetic field, then blessed by a priest, businesses would be only too glad to add the cost of those services to the price of goods. Money could be made by the producers of those goods, but it would merely make the economy inefficient and reduce the spending power of individuals.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

around around she goes, where she stops, nobody knows...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Apparently you don't know...and businesses love you for it.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

The whole global warming theory relies on the accuracy of a man made computer model that amazingly calculates the earths future climate. The notion that this program has accurately accounted for the innumerable factors and variations that effect climate seems laughable if not naive. 
Climate scientists don't have the tools or the capability to accurately predict weather for the next 24hrs, even at a localized level, it makes me highly skeptical they can predict global climate for the next 100 years (a task probably a thousand times more complicated to successfully predict). 
We've already seen how wrong these guys can be. Remember NOAAs 2006 deadly hurricane forecast? 
The impending ice age in the mid 70s?  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Apparently you don't know...and businesses love you for it.


it's pretty tough to nail you down.

Either this whole global warming response is bad for business, or they love it.

Watching your many many posts that go in many different directions, it's funny to watch once in a while.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: apparently you still aren't grasping it. It's good for businesses who can inflate the price of their goods beyond the cost of compliance. It's bad for consumers who will pay the increases without receiving any value for their money. Bad for companies who make items beyond the bare necessities, as consumer spending power diminishes. Bad for the economy in the long run because it creates inefficiencies and moves vast amounts of money from one party to another without any real economic activity occurring. You might lose your job, but it won't destroy the world.

That said, don't worry about me. I'm fully ready to accept whatever money comes down the green pipe for doing nothing. I'll probably come out ahead.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> groovetube: apparently you still aren't grasping it. It's good for businesses who can inflate the price of their goods beyond the cost of compliance. It's bad for consumers who will pay the increases without receiving any value for their money. Bad for companies who make items beyond the bare necessities, as consumer spending power diminishes. Bad for the economy in the long run because it creates inefficiencies and moves vast amounts of money from one party to another without any real economic activity occurring. You might lose your job, but it won't destroy the world.
> 
> That said, don't worry about me. I'm fully ready to accept whatever money comes down the green pipe for doing nothing. I'll probably come out ahead.


Ohhhhh. I see.

That's such a far cry from what we have now eh.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> groovetube: apparently you still aren't grasping it. It's good for businesses who can inflate the price of their goods beyond the cost of compliance. It's bad for consumers who will pay the increases without receiving any value for their money. Bad for companies who make items beyond the bare necessities, as consumer spending power diminishes. Bad for the economy in the long run because it creates inefficiencies and moves vast amounts of money from one party to another without any real economic activity occurring. You might lose your job, but it won't destroy the world.
> 
> That said, don't worry about me. I'm fully ready to accept whatever money comes down the green pipe for doing nothing. I'll probably come out ahead.


Yeah if I was an oil executive I'd be sending commission checks to the David Suzuki Foundation. At no cost to me, they've prepped the public with guilt to accept my $2.50 a liter gasoline price target. Some are even clamoring for it! They'll be happy I'm gouging them in the vein hope the higher prices are reducing consumption and saving the planet, yet I know darn well they'll not stop driving because there's no practical alternative to my fuel in the foreseeable future. They'll also continue to burn my fuel oil because you can only turn the thermostat down so low before the pipes freeze.
Worst case senario, they actually reduce consumption by 30%-40% while I raise profits by 300% and I don't get lynched for screwing them over. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Unfortunately, in the real world, it seems they have other 'scientists' they'd rather fund.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Climate scientists don't have the tools or the capability to accurately predict weather for the next 24hrs, even at a localized level, it makes me highly skeptical they can predict global climate for the next 100 years (a task probably a thousand times more complicated to successfully predict).


Climate is different from Weather. Weather is localized and short term - Climate is of a larger area and over a great stretch of time. Predictions of climate are hampered by the fact that we do not have a great deal of data. We have perhaps 150 years of weather readings, plus information that we interpret from ice cores, rocks, and other sources.

Weather prediction has in fact become much more precise, though it is difficult to predict whether a system will be exactly on course, or a little off course. Hurricanes are even harder to predict, mostly because they have only been studied in detail over the past forty years, and there are only so many storms of that nature to deal with in any given year.

But there are still mysteries - but the science between the study of weather and of climate is improving all of the time.

As for what is easier to predict - Climate is easier because it is much less precise and over longer intervals of time. Weather is a localized phenomenon, and really, it changes from minute to minute. Not to say that I don't blame the diabolical Government and the evil minions of Environment Canada for the crummy weather this weekend, though of course, it is nice and sunny right now, with three hours left of the long weekend...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> Unfortunately, in the real world, it seems they have other 'scientists' they'd rather fund.


I think they're starting to see "green". And I'm not talking lilypads and leaves.

Exxon Mobil Warming Up To Global Climate Issue - washingtonpost.com



> Now the oil giant says it has gotten a bad rap.* It points to $100 million it has given to a climate change program at Stanford University*. Cohen also cites the 40 papers Exxon's scientists have written about climate change for peer-reviewed journals.


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So who exactly do these people work for?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yea every once in a while some sucker falls for that one.

lol.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Suckers fall for mistruths on both sides of the issue.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> So who exactly do these people work for?


I noticed this DVD:

Shop.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!


> That's right. Global problems, real or conjured up, require global governmental solutions. As Whistleblower explains, environmentalism is nothing less than the global elitists' replacement ideology for communism/socialism. With communism largely discredited today – after all, 100-150 million people died at the hands of communist "visionaries" during the last century – elitists who desire to rule other people's lives have gravitated to an even more powerful ideology. More powerful because it seems to trump all other considerations, as it claims the very survival of life on earth is dependent on implementing its agenda.


And this magazine:

Shop.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!


> It documents how environmentalist-inspired laws outlawing asbestos caused the early collapse of the World Trade Center, killing thousands; how this year's ferocious western wildfires were largely the result of environmentalist policies; how environmentalist policy elitists want to lock up as much as one-half of the United States as "Wilderness," basically off-limits to humans; why the save-the-rainforest movement is a fraud; and much more.


I could imagine this site has 31,000 avid subscribers. Sorry, but that's not exactly convincing me that we can twiddle our thumbs about the environment. By the way the guy who started the petition didn't believe in the harms of CFC's or second hand smoke. True, he was more of a climatologist than others on either side of the fence, but anyone who chairs a board that downplays the danger of Second hand smoke late into 2000 should have their PhD revoked. You know... if that were possible.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CAPS: You may disagree with the site that reported that news. Do you disagree with the substance of the article?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

cap10subtext said:


> I noticed this DVD:
> 
> Shop.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!
> 
> ...


Sorry I was talking about the people in the article but I'll be more specific for those in the cheap seats:

Global Warming Petition Project

31,000 scientists, you have a lot of googling to do.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's worth putting right in the thread. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Notice how they're even limiting their signatories to legitimate scientists. The IPCC will let virtually anyone sign their petitions as long as they can hold a pencil.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> CAPS: You may disagree with the site that reported that news. Do you disagree with the substance of the article?


Yep. The validity of the report is based on the view of the founder of the project and the petition. The science which they claim is being given clout in the article is suspect. So what else is there?

Here's the bottom line, MF. Do I think Global warming is going to fry us? No. Do I think there's a possibility that the Earth could warm even one degree due to human made pollutants? Yes. And as far as I'm concerned that one degree AVERAGE temperature is enough to do irreparable damage to species and ecosystems on this planet pushing the geological evolution of the planet a couple hundred thousand years into the future. Possible beyond the point where humans can survive.



> "This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.


Helpful? That's a stretch. I've heard this argument over and over that it could be good for plant growth, blah blah blah... Not all plants thrive in high CO2 atmospheres and it's the fringe species necessary to promote biodiversity.  

Let's look at this dandy little quote:



> "These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.


So they are blaming the outsourcing of jobs to foreign oil dependency. This whole statement might seem rational at first blush but really it's ridiculous. The sort of entitlement they are claiming in the article as being necessary to the pursuit of liberty and happiness has nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. If they were so concerned about the energy needs of the developing world they'd develop solar plants and donate water purifiers, not sign contracts to store our Nuclear waste in their back yards.



> "The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. *We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. *There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.


My bold: *WRONGO!!!!!!!* Even people who develop and support Nuclear technology know it's dangers, the benefits outweigh the risks. That's it. This vague references to eco-friendly technologies is bogus because if they were talking about the sorts of alternative fuels the regulated decrease of carbon emissions would require we wouldn't be having this argument.

I'm sure you think I'm "cherry picking" this for inconsistencies but the fact is it's garbage.

So, let's have some fun, shall we, I picked the first name off the petition and googled them.

.:: The Evidence ::.

Earl M. Aagaard, PhD in Biology: "People have been asking for hundreds of years whether the diversity on this earth could be explained reasonably by some natural means. Today, in my opinion, the best evidence is that it can not." Hoooookay....

Anyways, turns out I'm not the first person to have done this, but I'm interested now and might spend more time perusing the list.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Caps: Why deal with "worldnetdaily" when Jumbo has provided the source of the petition.

And yes, you can cherry-pick names on the petition to find areas where you disagree with the scientists. What about IPCC favourite Maurice Stong's "fable" for the 21st century: "...isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?"


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Caps: Why deal with "worldnetdaily" when Jumbo has provided the source of the petition.


You might want to speak a bit louder so he can hear you up there...


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Caps: Why deal with "worldnetdaily" when Jumbo has provided the source of the petition.
> 
> And yes, you can cherry-pick names on the petition to find areas where you disagree with the scientists. What about IPCC favourite Maurice Stong's "fable" for the 21st century: "...isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?"


That one I didn't cherry pick, I snagged the first name on the list. And I'm not the kind to leave out the ones against my point, if I found an expert of climatology somewhere in the list, I'd post it.

I was going to give you another one but I'll leave the mud-slinging on the sidelines. You also don't have to convince me that there are some lefty wackos on the IPCC. 

I'll read the full report on the site. Have you?

Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've already read the report. The point, however, is that the "consensus" myth is continually touted by the IPCC and global warming ideologues.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

There's nothing funnier than watching people actually take the link JJ posted seriously.

Nothing really needs to be said further.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Suckers fall for mistruths on both sides of the issue.


so, in other words, you too think this link is a sham.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

cap10subtext said:


> I'll read the full report on the site. Have you?
> 
> Global Warming Petition Project


I have. It raises from very interesting data.

The solar data has always stood out for me because it has a very high correlation with temperature. Solar is also external to the system and thus, we can conclude it is not simply a correlation, but a causation. In contrast, making the same conclusion with CO2 is more difficult.

The glacier retreating data is also interesting in that it started before significant usage of fossil fuels and the rate hasn't changed much once we started using fossil fuels heavily.

I would like to see the other side debunk this data.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> There's nothing funnier than watching people actually take the link JJ posted seriously.
> 
> Nothing really needs to be said further.


Why not? You think it is some fake made up site, or that the info is bogus? I doubt the creator of the petition would be on AM 640 this morning if it had been a scam. But think what you will.

No luck finding any links to big oil yet? Is that why you aren't putting up an argument?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: That's an unfortunate tactic often used by global warming ideologues. Here's one of their best substitutes for a rational argument: a smiley-faced icon and the three letters "LOL."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> The solar data has always stood out for me because it has a very high correlation with temperature. Solar is also external to the system and thus, we can conclude it is not simply a correlation, but a causation. In contrast, making the same conclusion with CO2 is more difficult.


I've also seen little debunking on the pro-anthropogenic warming side of the climate data from Mars which continues to indicate that any warming trends on Earth have been mimicked on the Red Planet as well.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> What about IPCC favourite Maurice Stong's "fable" for the 21st century: "...isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?"


Maurice Strong really did his part to facilitate the collapse of industry when he bankrupted Ontario Hydro...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> so, in other words, you too think this link is a sham.


No, not at all. 

What I think is that you have been shammed by inconclusive and erroneous data foisted on the unsuspecting public by fear mongering purveyors of global warming.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> Why not? You think it is some fake made up site, or that the info is bogus? I doubt the creator of the petition would be on AM 640 this morning if it had been a scam. But think what you will.


Well, I am more than suspicious considering that it is signed by Edward Teller, "Father of the Hydrogen Bomb" who also claimed that the reactor at Three Mile Island was perfectly safe, and that Jane Fonda was a greater threat to the people of Pennsylvania...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts: The reactor was safe--the boobs running it weren't.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Why not? You think it is some fake made up site, or that the info is bogus? I doubt the creator of the petition would be on AM 640 this morning if it had been a scam. But think what you will.
> 
> No luck finding any links to big oil yet? Is that why you aren't putting up an argument?


Oh... my... god.

AM640?????

Holy mother of heaven IT MUST BE THE GOSPEL TRUTH!!!!

Everyone go out and buy that V8 SUV!!! Global warming is a fraud because a bunch of, er, people, um, SAID SO!! No idea what they're credentials are, but hell there's 31000 of them!!!!!!

oh man this just gets funnier by the moment.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Oh... my... god.
> 
> AM640?????
> 
> Holy mother of heaven IT MUST BE THE GOSPEL TRUTH!!!!


We'll need to remember that the next time Suzuki is on the radio, television, or poking his head through a hole in my wall, creepy bastard.



groovetube said:


> No idea what they're credentials are, but hell there's 31000 of them!!!!!!





> All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. *Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Suzuki is poking his head through your walls??

Really???

Well that explains things a little better...

lol.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> lol.


Jumbo: You gotta admit that we're seeing some pretty strong arguments from some quarters.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there really is nothing one can do but laugh at the pair of you for falling for that cheap bit of nonsense that has been tried on us not once, but several times.

What was it Bush said... fool me twice...

lmao.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Suzuki is poking his head through your walls??
> 
> Really???
> 
> ...


Yes, he's also stealing our beer fridges and stalking our kids too. He's one step away from becoming an organized religion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

riiiiight.

check.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> EvanPitts: The reactor was safe--the boobs running it weren't.


Perhaps - but I don't know if I would want to take opinion on world climate change of someone who not only claimed that a melted down Three Mile Island it was perfectly safe - but took out full page advertisements to his opinion (of course, sponsored by the company that made the defective valves that allows the meltdown to occur in the first place). He also thought that the Trinity Bomb would set the atmosphere of New Mexico on fire. I just think it is odd that they put his name out as some sort of "reliable scientist" on the matter of Global Warming.

Jane Fonda was pretty much a danger to America: selling out to the Viet Cong, the China Syndrome, and her workout videos... Thank the Lord that Ted Turner saved us!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> Perhaps - but I don't know if I would want to take opinion on world climate change of someone who not only claimed that a melted down Three Mile Island it was perfectly safe - but took out full page advertisements to his opinion (of course, sponsored by the company that made the defective valves that allows the meltdown to occur in the first place). He also thought that the Trinity Bomb would set the atmosphere of New Mexico on fire.* I just think it is odd that they put his name out as some sort of "reliable scientist" on the matter of Global Warming.*


Cough... Al Gore... cough...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Yes, he's also stealing our beer fridges and stalking our kids too. He's one step away from becoming an organized religion.


LOL!
I had a 1984 moment when I was sitting at ScotiaBank place between the second and third period and Suzuki's giant head appeared on the jumbotron with an Envirosermon. Scary! 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: Apparently some people are so out of the loop they haven't seen those pathetic David $uzuki ads.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Cough... Al Gore... cough...


Cough...David Suzuki...cough


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> We'll need to remember that the next time Suzuki is on the radio, television, or poking his head through a hole in my wall, creepy bastard.


The fool on TV can save $150 per year on electricity for his beer fridge - but Suzuki forgot to tell him about the extra money that will be spent driving the thirty mile round trip in the Ford F-350 to get to the beer store to buy a twelve pack and a mickey every day.

They never showed the outtake where Suzuki drank all of the guys booze, and ate the chunk of venison out of the freezer by cooking it over a Pentium II MMX.

Neither did they show the outtake where Suzuki broke into the bathroom while the dudes daughter was showering!

I bet Suzuki didn't walk to the dudes house either...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> Neither did they show the outtake where Suzuki broke into the bathroom while the dudes daughter was showering!


I stand corrected, he has now entered into the realm of organized religion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i think it's time to walk away and let you fellers have at it from here...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> i think it's time to walk away and let you fellers have at it from here...


Good for you! Nothing wrong with a gracious retreat.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Thanks for posting the link JJ. It took a bit of independent research but I'm more convinced than ever that global warming is an important issue.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Sure it's important, I don't think anyone here would dispute that. What is being disputed is if it is being caused by man-made Co2 emissions.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> What is being disputed is if it is being caused by man-made Co2 emissions.


I thnik things like Kyoto just serve to polarize people. All of this talk about storing CO2, or doing other things with it serves no purpose. What humanity needs to do is become smarter about using what we have. And I don't mean some luddite conservation methods that crackpots like Suzuki advocate. We can save a lot of energy if we stopped shipping fruit around the world, for instance. Or the thing I saw on the CBC last night - where the Russians catch fish in the Bering Sea, ship it to China for processing - then it is shipped frozen back across the Pacific, through the Panama Canal and up the coast to Lunenburg, where it is once again processed and packaged. Last I looked, Lunenburg was not only on the ocean, but near fishing grounds. What economies are served by the 20,000 mile trip a piece of fish has to make - when really, a boat can go maybe 20 miles out and catch the same fish? 

Living stupidly will kill us long before CO2 has it's say...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> What is being disputed is if it is being caused by man-made Co2 emissions.


...and what might be the unanticipated result of reducing the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------

