Global warming is good for us now...

I don't think many people argue that the earth is warming or cooling naturally. What to me is scary is that we humans now help the earth get warmer by letting vast amounts of CO2 into the air. In an already volatile weather "ecosystem" this could cause a lot of scary new weather patterns. I'm not sure I would like to find out exactly how scary, our hurricanes here in US are already scary enough. So to me it makes sense that we, the people on this earth, try to spend our energy as efficient and clean as we can. This doesn't mean we won't see climate change, just that the climate change won't have unknown side effects caused by us humans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Apr 9 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]420222[/snapback]</div>

Richard Lindzen is hardly oil-money free.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/glo...xxon_report.pdf
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
$763,500
In 2002, ExxonMobil funds represented approximately 20% of their total expenses. The
Annapolis Center’s climate work includes production of materials exaggerating the uncertainty
about the human contribution to climate change. Climate contrarians Sallie Baliunas and
Richard Lindzen serve as scientific advisors.

Richard Lindzen affiliations with Exxon-funded institutes
Institute: Role
Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy: Science and Economic Advisory Council Member
Cato Institute: Contributing Expert
George C. Marshall Institute: Report Author

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Apr 9 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]420222[/snapback]</div>

great article. AGW has become a religion for the atheists.

amazing that at least SIX MLB games have been cancelled due to snow

here in Gotham City it was snowing over the weekend.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Apr 9 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]420233[/snapback]</div>

And even if he was, Lindzen is one of a small minority of climate scientists who maintain the position that climate change is not a matter of concern. As such, his opinions are greatly sought and frequently published by the Wall Street Journal, the Cato Institute, and other "unbiased" entities.
It would seem illogical to only heed the opinions of Lindzen and to scorn the majority of climate scientists who maintain that global warming is, to a large extent, anthropogenic; and that it is a matter of concern. However, when one is interested only in promoting an opinion that aligns with ones self-interests, and not in a legitimate debate, that would seem to be the strategy.
As a scientist, I believe that skepticism is healthy and advances our overall level of knowledge. When one's work is subjected to critical review by others, it forces one to be more rigorous. That is the essence of the peer-review method, which has served science well. Listening to and considering a range of viewpoints will only enable us to understand this phenomenon even better than we do presently.
But the people who defiantly stick Richard Lindzen up on the wall to prove that climate scientists are "chicken littles" and that "algore" is full of it are not interested in a reasoned debate, or in actually learning anything about the science. The have a predetermined mindset- that any government regulation is bad, and since government regulation is likely going to be a remedy to mitigate global warming, that anyone who suggests that we must deal with global warming must be discredited at all costs.
Likewise, from a scientific point of view, I would say that anyone who immediately takes the position that we are on the brink of an impending disaster without understanding the science is equally wrong. However, at least their motives (concern for the environment) are more benign than those who are more concerned with corporate profits, and that their position, while extreme, is closer to reality than the global warming deniers.
These shouting matches with the "global warming is a myth" crowd are just a waste of time, and they distract us from the discussion that we need to be having- what to do about it. I don't necessarily believe that every proposed remedy for global warming is the right approach. For instance, I think that the cap and trade system is fraught with problems. We do need caps, and I'm not saying that I don't believe that cap and trade might be workable, but as it's now proposed I see it as primarily benefiting carbon credit brokers and possibly having a negative effect on reduction of emissions. But we won't even get to this kind of debate, as long as we have ill-informed congressmen pontificating that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

 

I can't get enough of the argument that local weather patterns somehow refute global warming.

You guys are like the residents of High Brasil in the movie "Erik the Viking." Sitting there happily denying what's in front of your very eyes while your island sinks beneath the waves.

A few degrees warmer on average might sound nice to you, but to the millions upon millions of the worlds poorest people who live on large river deltas and whose lives will be washed away with a small change in sea level, it doesn't sound so nice.

 

Thanks for sharing. Lindzen is a brother to that minority of aging geology professors who circa 1980 didn't think plate tectonics were real. He too shall pass.

For discussion of the facts of global warming see http://realclimate.org

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 9 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]420256[/snapback]</div>

Three cheers for the Metrodome! (and Twins games, like the Dollar-Dog night last wed, not being canceled!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 9 2007, 11:13 AM) [snapback]420256[/snapback]</div>

You're a physician, right? My grandfather smoked four packs of cigarettes a day for most of his life. He lived to be well in his 90s.
Ergo, smoking increases life expectancy, and you would recommend it to your patients?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Apr 9 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]420268[/snapback]</div>

Exactly!

I crack up everytime I see a post like the OP and it turns out to be from the SAME small handful of scientists. Lindzen and Christy stand out the most. You are reading what you want to hear and not doing enough real research. It's like going to a christian website to find out about athieism or taoism. *shakes head*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 9 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]420256[/snapback]</div>

Stop it DOC! You and I both know weather events may only be cited when they support AGW!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Apr 9 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]420272[/snapback]</div>

there is a difference between the science and studies connecting smoking with lung cancer and that of AGW, no?

or do you think that the science behind AGW is as solid as that behind the association of cigarettes and lung cancer?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 9 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]420280[/snapback]</div>

ditto

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 9 2007, 11:32 AM) [snapback]420270[/snapback]</div>

too bad they could not enclose the golf course in augusta :lol: they were playing with snow gloves so much for agw - unless of course we expect a frigid april in '07 - what did the models say about this coming may?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 9 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]420293[/snapback]</div>

My point was that a weather anomaly of one place over one weekend is as much evidence one way or another of climate trends as the case of my grandfather is evidence that smoking is harmless.
And while I don't think anyone today would believe anything as absurd as smoking is good for you, or even harmless; there is plenty of "research" funded by tobacco companies (and the restaraunt industry, which vigorously opposes anti-smoking laws) that is intended to at least raise uncertainty as to the harmful effects of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Apr 9 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]420298[/snapback]</div>

the science (i use that term with trepidation) behind AGW is far from reliable. there are several excellent points the author makes concerning co2 production and gw - how do you refute them?

 

Yeah, who ever herd of it being 62* in April !!!
Its cold out side for Florida But in 1940 it was 91* today.. :huh:

 

There used to be around 5 prominent GW scienctist skeptics. Their numbers have shrunk to two.

And BTW, even Lindzen has backtracked in the last couple years. He has quickly gone from 'the earth is NOT warming', to 'well, it's warming, but it's not from humans', to 'humans play a part, but the severity of GW is uncertain', to his current stance of 'yeahh, it's humans, but who knows what difference cutting carbon pollution will make'.

So ostriches, enjoy your pied piper while you can.

 

Heck, who ever heard of it hitting 80 degrees in March in Minnesota? And yet that happened... set a new record, too. Must be definite proof for Global Warming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Apr 9 2007, 11:30 AM) [snapback]420266[/snapback]</div>

When it was warm this past winter, I saw a talking head on TV sit there and smugly exclaim that "well, yes, this is proof of global warming."

So apparently local weather patterns DO *confirm* global warming, according to that talking head.

Then it got cold--BITTER cold.

Was that also proof of global warming?


This reminds me of one of my favorite Cheers teasers. Norm and Cliff are sitting at the bar on a bitter February day, drinking cold beer. Diane wants to know how they could possibly drink cold beer on such a cold day. Norm looks at Cliff and says, "Cliff?" Diane interrupts to ask, "How can you know he'll have an answer to this?" Cliff just looks at Diane and says, "Five bucks says he does, ten bucks says it's a doozy."

At this Cliff looks up and pontificates, "When the, uh, British ruled the Punjab....", at which point Norm interrupts with, "Ten bucks it is."

Cliff went on to explain how on the hottest days in India, the British would drink hot tea to equalize their internal temperatures with the outside temperature, in order to feel more comfortable. By extension, then, drinking cold beer on a cold day has the same effect.

Diane then asks, "Well then why do you drink cold beer on a hot day?" to which Cliff answers, "What else you gonna do wit' it?"


At any rate, the talking heads who so desperately wanted to be on TV didn't hesitate to take advantage of the warm weather over the winter to get themselves on TV to spout things like, "Clearly, this is global warming."

What we need are fewer talking heads.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Apr 9 2007, 11:31 AM) [snapback]420268[/snapback]</div>

Facts have a well-known liberal bias! :lol:

 

Here's what I don't get. How can anybody NOT realize that the gases and pollutants we release in the atmosphere are created by artificial and not natural means, and that if we were not a civilized world these pollutants would not exist. How can anybody NOT realize that these enormous changes in the composition of the atmosphere can have effects on the weather patterns and climate of the planet?

It only makes sense...