Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

Have you actually read any of the science?? Groups like the IPCC recognize that natural climate change does occur ... through out the 1990s, the debate was on whether human activity contributed to the variation seen ... over the past two decades, the evidence has piled up that man actually is changing the atmosphere enough to be a significant factor.




The greenhouse effect is like erosion - it happens naturally, but humans can increase it dramatically, with consequences.

Most of it is, and would have been... well... white, ruveyn. There's been an ice sheet a mile thick over a good part of it for over 100,000 years, as far as I'm aware. Of course away from the ice, I understand some of it is green in the summer.

See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 182833.htm

Interesting article.

"For the first time, researchers have documented a shift in breeding ranges for northerly species in North America. The study parallels findings in Europe."

Therefore,
All previous shifts in breeding ranges for northerly species in North America have never been documented.

For a range diff. of 40 miles.

I live in the S.E. U.S. and, last year it was cooler than it was the prior year.

http://www.environmentalnewsstand.com/i ... PA-30-19-6

inside EPA, May 15, 2009 — EPA’s priority focus on addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2009 is drawing concerns from some agency advisors who fear efforts to reduce criteria pollutants and air toxics are getting sidelined.

EPA’s Office of Transportation & Air Quality Director Margo Oge told a meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee’s (CAAAC) Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee May 13 that, through 2009 at least, EPA will focus on addressing GHG emissions and deemphasize further criteria pollutant reductions from transportation.

Oge said that, at least for the rest of the year, addressing global warming pollution takes precedent over air quality tasks.

“I cannot commit our team to do anything that would be credible as far as criteria pollutants go,”said Oge, citing the “tremendous workload” EPA faces in meeting its climate change responsibilities. “What all of you cannot see is the tremendous stress that is going on in our efforts. . . . We are in the process of making history on climate change.”

Well, that makes feel better....

I live just about as far north as you do. I see the effects. Things are warmer. Its drier here too. Snow comes later in the season.

But you are missing the point. The point is, if there is no need for peer review, then dont do it. Dont do it incorrectly. Do it right, or dont do it at all.

If I were doing a soil sample, and I didnt need to check the phosphorus level, I wouldnt do the test. I would not do the test incorrectly and then publish my results.

Thats what they do for their peer reviews. Having involved co-workers(and not just colleagues) peer review the projects they are working on is wrong. Regardless of evidence. Things are just not done that way in science. a peer review is not an internal audit. That is something different.

Peer review means the same thing it does in a trial. It is evidence examined by your peers who do not have an emotional, financial or personal connection to the evidence.

Say you had a murder. The guilty party confessed. Taken to trial, they attempt to determine a reasonable sentence in light of the circumstances. It might be premediated, might be provoked. Should a jury be selected with members that are friends with the victim? What of the accused? Should any of the jury members be friends with the judge? No, no and no.

They are right. The world is warming up. Weather is changing. But their methodology sucks.

It matters that they do it right, because a precedence has been set, and future actions will use this precedence.

See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134843.htm

CEO Latest Statements

Notice, that the original post was placed in the "Politics, Philosophy, and Religion" but, for some reason, only links to "science" sites are respected and only if they back up your assertions. If you want to have a scientific discussion about global warming, or is it "climate change", or is it "man-made global warming", or is it "man-made climate change" then by all means do so, but maybe do it over in the science arena.

Here is my point, the Greenhouse Effect is the Holy Grail used by environmental minded people as the de facto explanation of what is occurring in our climate. CO2 is the culprit and we humans are responsible for it. Period, end of discussion, time to talk cap and trade.

Well, when the numbers do not match the projected results set by these same climate forecasters then someone out there just might raise their hand and ask a question. It is up to the predictors to handle these questions of skepticism in a professional manner. This has not happened. So, I reassert that it is the methods used to "convince" people that the science is a "consensus" that have brought about growing skepticism and a less willing population wanting to address the issue.

Call it what you like. And how do you propose to have a purely philosophical discussion of global whatever? General political or philosophical statements about the debate depend on science. And is not science itself a branch of philosophy, a way of pursuing Sophia/wisdom?? If the train tracks have been abandoned, we don't need to worry much about playing on them; if a train could come through any minute, better to nap somewhere else.

Hey Monty,

Sometimes I find it easier to look at a problem by analyzing the solutions and then analyzing the problem. If the solutions are more problematic than the problem then that usually raises a red flag in my mind. I like the KISS philosophy and then gradually move to more complicated solutions.

For instance, take the new light bulbs we are being mandated to use. The solution creates a bigger environmental problem down the road which not many want to talk about now.

Solar Panels are another great idea, but the efficiency is bad. One way to improve the efficiency of solar panels and batteries is to use different materials. I believe we would deplete the planet of these special materials in a 10 year span if efficient solar panels were mass produced.

If you have some free time Monty, I'd like to get your opinion about the following analysis,

4 Temp. Data Sets

Science and metaphysics parted company nearly 500 years ago. By the time of Isaac Newton the last vestiges of Aristotelian metaphysics were purged from the physical sciences (and good riddance!).

ruveyn

I think that the following website has good information about what the weather is doing, and is food for thought; especially for those who agree with the global warming hypothesis.

Predict Weather | The home of long range weather.

They cannot scientifically predict the weather one month into the future. But we are to believe they know what will happen in 50 years.

The SUN is the major player in all global climate. The OCEAN is second. CO2 doesn't even come close to third. Certainly WATER VAPOR ranks higher, but that's a natural compound that nature deals with automatically.

Ice caps on planets and moons throughout our solar system are experiencing the same phenomenon as we are.

Man's impact on the environment is more one of toxic waste, not greenhouse gases.

The real question is whether human activities are the main drivers of the current warming trend or not. The people who claim the sky is falling have not made the case.

Does anyone remember anything about the medieval warming trend or the younger Dryas? The climate warmed well before the industrial revolution. Human activity had nothing to do with it. What about the Little Ice Age, just at the cusp of the industrial revolution. The temperature plumetted and the Thames froze over.

Don't get me wrong. I wish we would break the Filthy Oil Habbit. I don't want to see the U.S. depend on a fuel source controlled by our enemies. I think we should pave North America over with fast breeder reactors and make lots of electricity without burning a single hydro-carbon molecule.

ruveyn

Lets see here. Reykjavik, Iceland recorded its 1st 75 Degree plus temperatures on record in the past few year's. A place that doesn't get out of the Mid-50's During the summer. In Iceland you can still see your breath how cold it is in the middle of the summer. Good portions of the Arctic Circle are ice-free also. You can currently go through the N.W Passage how warm it is.

Face it Global Warming isn't no Al Gore B.S. Most of the scientific world believe in CO2 Global Warming is happening. Notice that temperature in the cities are a good 5-7 Degree above the tempatures in the surrounding areas. Like the temperatures 70 miles from me down in Tampa are a good 10 degrees above what they are up here. If My area gets a Hard Freeze Tampa may only see temperatures dip in the 40's. Thats because of the Heat Island effect due to the cars, buildings and factories.

The only reason why the corporations and conservative politicians (E.G- George W. Bush, Sarah Palin.) tell the world that global warming doesn't exist is because they are money- grubbing and are ignorant about more environmentally friendly manufacturing and energy usage. Why do you think Texas has the worst pollution/ temperature increases of any place in the world right next to China. Texas is run by industry and corporate power-houses with state politicians who have a libertarian mindset that let the businesses destroy the state by dumping toxins into the atmosphere and local land an water system. Not to mention lax vehicle standards in the U.S and China has caused massive pollution and Hotter Summers with no relief and Milder Winters with less snow in places with an ecosystem that needs snow.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lobal-warm

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/a ... 2003198561

Yeah, you can buy your uranium from Canada. We'll even enrich it for you.