Scientists respond to Gore's warnings . . .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 15 2006, 08:11 PM) [snapback]271925[/snapback]</div>

It is an interesting read, but it's certainly not from an unbiased source. Other articles from this site have already been quoted, but here's another one:
"Currently, the mayor of crazy town is Al Gore. Al Gore has always been in search of a wedge issue to divide the American people and push additional power to the government. In today’s world, the global warming agenda has become an interesting tool for advancing socialism."

Also, ex-President Jimmy Carter is in league with Osama bin Laden in Carter's "Blame America First" campaign.

But what about the article itself? It sounds valid and raises some good points. A fair bit of time is spent explaining how glaciers have always produced icebergs, while I don't think anybody was actually confused that that was some recent phenomena. And it was written by a mechanical engineer, not to be confused with a climatologist (although he quotes Professor Bob Carter, a "climate expert", degree unknown, a paleoclimatologist, two climatologists and a couple marine geologists).

I'll try to find something correlating global temperatures with CO2 levels 450 million years ago. It's interesting that they chose that time frame and had to go back that far, since the last 400,000 years show a very close relationship between temperature and CO2 levels. Of course, one must be careful of the source, as sometimes somebody publishes some anecdotal information, and that gets used and re-used by others as fact. Such as drinking 8 glasses of water (pop and coffee doesn't count) as a minimum, and some people get pretty strict about that. Turns out one scientist a couple decades ago measured all the water a person used, and came up with an average of 8 glasses. But that includes water from sources like oranges and milk in cereal. What's my point? People massage data (quite possibly with valid statistical methods) but the result looks a little different, and then it gets repeated by others but without the explanation, and you see it often enough, in different ways, to think various studies were done that show the same basic result. So I think we need to be very careful about interpreting these results.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a pretty conclusive array of evidence showing that recent global warming is real, and that CO2 levels correspond to global temperature (cause or effect uncertain) over the last half million years (which is more important to me than an event a half billion years ago, before flowers, grasses and most land animals were present). Also, CO2 levels are conclusively shown to have been raised by human activity. The only question is, did the CO2 levels in the past cause global warming or were a result of global warming? (Obivously it is a greenhouse gas, keeping in heat and would raise temperatures, but we'd need to know the levels of other GHGs and atmospheric particles that can cool, etc.)

So we have a short chain of events, most of the links have been proven to be strong, but a couple aren't well known. Society is pulling this chain, and at the other end is global warming. Business-as-usual folks tend to think those unknown links don't exist and thus we have nothing to worry about, others are saying, hey, global warming is coming closer to us, it must be because we're pulling on the chain. A prudent person would at least say let's not pull so hard until we have it figured out, but the conservatives are saying, keep pulling until we figure it out, because we're betting our grandchildren on the fact those links don't exist.

And the real kicker is, we can keep our society humming along quite nicely without pulling so hard on the chain. All we need to do is create jobs and research into things like solar energy and electric vehicles instead of sending our money to OPEC and how to extract more oil from increasingly expensive sources.

 

Ok I think I'll use Daniels the Flying Spagetti Monster as he is the answer to everything & is the one who started the whole global warming trend and the scientists that are for it are collecting the monies for the research and giving 1/2 to the Spagetti Monster and keeping the other 1/2 for themselves as payment for providing the scientific data to the Goverment & providing gloom & doom to the public......

So I guess you have two choices:

1. Believe in the Spagetti Monsters scientists.

2. believe in the anit-warming scientists.

 

Get your head out of your arse, look at the ALL the evidence in the three threads, and then respond. Not until then can you maybe enter into a real debate. Apparently you are incapable of responding to the evidence and have to resort the scientific monies "argument."

Or is that too hard for your views? Afraid of a little scientific hardball, are we?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 16 2006, 07:12 PM) [snapback]272463[/snapback]</div>

Ahh I see you dont welcome other peoples opinions...... And resort to name calling, what a shame.. :blink: :lol: :lol:

 

Where's the name calling? All I see is a bit of justified mocking. I am providing you with a challenge to look at the evidence collected from various resources and respond to them... which you have failed to do.

The global warming issue is one quite distinct from social issues such as gay marriage, crime, etc etc etc. There is PLENTY of evidence in support of human-induced/aided global warming, and I encourage you to look at the sources and articles I have posted.

If by opinion you mean turning a blind eye to the evidence that's in support of human aided gw, then go on right ahead... from what I've read there isn't a whole lot of room for opinion. All the naysayers I've seen just try to point out where evidence isn't necessarily fact, but they have done nothing to provide convincing evidence to show that we aren't out of phase with natural deviation.


"Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or CH4 to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, absent indirect mitigating effects. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and CH4 will be."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

"Only a small minority of scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences."

Please note that is the second time I've had posted those two paragraphs. So now who is the one not welcoming other opinions? Apparently you haven't read the sources/articles that were posted.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jun 16 2006, 06:53 PM) [snapback]272448[/snapback]</div>

i don't believe entities like that have any use for money.

and you may care to take into account
-work required to receive funding (lots of writing and revising)
-grant application requiring detailed explanation of research plan and tenative expected outcomes
-progress reports required complete with actual data
-cost of research supplies (i spent more than my monthly stipend check- last week alone- on supplies)
-speaking of checks, how about cost of paying employees
-to be disseminated to the world, data needs to be published in reputable journal, leaving it up for testing by other competing laboratories, which means it has to be quality or your reputation is down the toilet.

just a little wake up call

 

Well said galaxee... these gw naysayers will invent just about any excuse when their other points are discredited (given all the stuff posted, then he has to resort to Oh, well it's about the monies).
--------------------------
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jun 16 2006, 05:07 PM) [snapback]272408[/snapback]</div>

And in that case it is like hitting two birds with one stone... doing that decreases dependence on mid east oil and thus the mid east itself. So where is this serious economic hardfall in that case?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 16 2006, 09:49 AM) [snapback]272266[/snapback]</div>

Very good point. I remember the issue of spray can propellants (CFC's? Some kind of hydrocarbon or something that was said to affect the ozone layer). Reducing them did cost a bunch, from different freon formulations for A/C systems, recovery systems, elimination of the DIY car A/C recharge kits, etc. The loss of ozone is abated now according to some studies, and the "hole" in the ozone over Antartica is said to be shrinking. They don't know if reducing human emissions of the stuff helped or not, but the economic dislocation was not as great as predicted.

 

Will the real Professor Bob Carter please stand up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 16 2006, 07:46 PM) [snapback]272496[/snapback]</div>

Chlorofluorocarbons.

"CFCs have a lifetime in the atmosphere of about 20 to 100 years, and consequently one free chlorine atom from a CFC molecule can do a lot of damage, destroying ozone molecules for a long time. Although emissions of CFCs around the developed world have largely ceased due to international control agreements, the damage to the stratospheric ozone layer will continue well into the 21st century."

OzoneHole


Remember DDT? Oh, how the farmers and others screamed bloody murder when they couldn't use their precious DDT anymore. We would all starve because there wouldn't be any more fresh produce. Farmers would all go out of business.

Well, none of that happened. And the eagle and condor populations are on the rise. And I'm sure there will be those that deny any correlation.

BTW one of the strongest activists for the ban on DDT was Eddie Albert after scientific data revealed the threat. Just because he was an actor alerting people to the dangers of DDT, didn't mean DDT wasn't dangerous anyway.

Oh, and why am I taking the side of the Global Warming alarmists? Well, for one thing you have to look at the entire picture, the whole world, not some local anomolies. Second...who lives in snow? Well, this winter put something out to protect the snow from falling dust. Pollution. Airborn particulate matter. You'll notice the dirty, dusty snow melts faster than the pristine snow. Not only does man create pollution but it goes way up and that dust falls all over the world, even in antartica. And that dust makes snow melt faster. It also makes glaciers melt. And that is just one aspect of a very large, very complicated picture.

Yes, I believe that humans are having an impact on the environment. Exactly how much impact is really the debate. Just how much can we stress the Planet until we are beyond the point of no return? No one knows. And that is the scary part. Guess wrong and we all pay. Only it won't be with money. It will be with life.

 

priusguy04,

I apoligize if I have offended you... it is an important topic for us because, potentially, it not only affects our future, but our children's, grandchildren's, etc. If the predictions ring true... which we believe will... our future generations will be more intelligent about our planet than we are... being able to see the negatives more directly of environmental wrecklessness.

Here are the very basics about human-induced global warming:

-Carbon dioxide and methane are classified as greenhouse gases (duh).
-Take 3 air-tight glass aquariums.
-Fill one with regular air.
-Fill another with double the ppm/concentration of carbon dioxide, and the third with double that (all things else in the air of the tanks equal).
-Place them outside where they are close enough together that, other than what is on the inside, the conditions are exactly the same.
-After some time, measure the temperature of the air inside the tanks.
-You will see that, in these tanks, there is a causal effect between the carbon dioxide level and the internal temperature... this is a direct link.

Now, the earth's atmosphere is vastly more complicated than the inside of a tank (duh)... but most scientists, given the all the evidence they have collected, believe that there is more than sufficient evidence to pinpoint human-produced carbon emissions as a significant factor in temperature increase and fluctuation beyond what is the natural variation would be.

Anyhow, I will be spending some time this weekend analyzing Bob Carter's articles... and I do believe I have the knowledge to and am qualified to because I have taken courses on plants and ecology (among others)... I have a BS in Biology. The ecology course I took studied, in depth, global warming and the ozone hole over the antarctic (among other topics).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 16 2006, 06:20 PM) [snapback]272508[/snapback]</div>

Seems to be a geologist, not climatologist, with a lot of opinion pieces.

also:
"Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company."
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134

http://technocrat.net/d/2006/6/14/4451

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/20...ike_it_hot.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2...xxon_chart.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...al-gores-movie/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec25.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686

just for fun:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

 

i also glanced through his publication record and didn't see a hell of a lot on climatology.

did i not just go on about how there's the area of expertise and there's the area of opinion?

 

Because climate warming is happening on such a slow scale relative to our lifetimes, most people will find it hard to accept the data. And any personal sacrifice at all is way out of the question for them. After all, while it may be warmer today, tomorrow is just as likely to be cooler, right. And this might even be a cooler than normal year, which gives the the nay sayers a soap box to get up on and yell, "See I told you it wasn't warmer you ninnies". But the longest term data of 600,000+ years from the core samples in antartica point to rapidly increasing CO2 levels and warming happening now on an unprecidented scale. And really, does that sound so extreme, given our ever increasing numbers of autos, hi-tech applicances, coal fired plants, etc?

It's not just Al Gore but well respected scientists like James Hanson and Tim Flannery who have come forward and taken a very brave position that we're close to a tipping point with GW and it's being driven by us. I say brave because all the arm chair scientists, lawyers, psudoscientific wizards can now freely take cheap shots at them without ever offering a spec of data of their own. And because they're saying something much more popular with the masses than what Al Gore is telling us, it's so much moreeasy to believe them than Al, James, or Tim.

As an engineer I say, show me the data. I'm very familar with non-linear systems and so called tipping points. I believe the data supports that at some point this warming is really going to upset some amazingly ballanced things about the earth's environment. Maybe not in my lifetime, but what about your kids or their kids? Why wait for it to happen when it's really not that painful to make some very minor, gradual, but constant changes now. My wife and I have managed to cut back our consumption of electricity (180-200 kw-hr/month now) by about 60% since 2001 and natural gas by 25% with plans for additional reductions this year. And I even have a wide screen TV, just not a energy hog plasma. We really could turn this into a win-win for the US if we had leadership with even half a brain to see the opportunity for US to be leaders.

I'd like nothing better than to hear that Al Gore was going to run in 2008. But after listening to him on Larry King the other night, I came away convinced that first of all he truely believes that this effort of his is probably the most important thing he will ever do. And second that he can be more effective not as President, but as someone that can help sway popular opinion for the next president. I only wish there were two of him because I have nothing but respect for his honesty, integrity and dedication. The SNL skit, while very exaggerated, was exactly what a lot of people have imagined it might have been like had things gone different in 2000.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 16 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]272396[/snapback]</div>

Um, isn't that the POINT of "Intelligent" design: "It's about the FAITH, stupid!" :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Jun 17 2006, 01:22 AM) [snapback]272585[/snapback]</div>

Precicesly what is wrong with faith. Especially since it is based on only what some idiot said that no body here now ever met. Plain old fashioned branwashing. Repeat garbage often and some will beileve. Bush learned that too.

You could just as well kill somebody with a gun and say it was just coincidence that they died. The bullet had nothing to do with it. Faith based beliefs can make some people feel good, but don't help fix anything in this world. Course that may be what some of those people want. They want the world to end soon.

 

There shouldn't be any need to try and consolidate ID over evolution to keep one's faith... but I think a rather alarming indicator of the ways things are is when faith is upheld over reason. A more extreme point in case: the Muslims who kill others for saying negative things about the religion.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Jun 17 2006, 01:22 AM) [snapback]272585[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Jun 15 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]272003[/snapback]</div>

Why is it when people can't attack the argument, they attack the person/source?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Jun 16 2006, 10:22 PM) [snapback]272585[/snapback]</div>

Maybe I should have said, that seems to be the LACK of a point about ID...according to the proponents of ID, those who do not believe in it are godless and not worth trying to tell anything, since our denial of their object of faith renders us uneducable. Believe anything you like, as long as it is MY belief... <_<

 

Sorry, I misread [this time]!