Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

SFR: Al Gore's mistakes?

10K views 121 replies 55 participants last post by  chadk 
#1 ·
#44 ·
Hey GT
Compare http://www.dxlc.com/solar/history/hist1954.html

To http://www.dxlc.com/solar/history/hist2004.html

to http://www.dxlc.com/solar/history/hist2006.html

to http://www.dxlc.com/solar/history/hist1959.html

You really think we understand anything? I've read the IPCC report, and they basically acknowledge "If we don't understand the contribution of something, and it contradicts our going in position, we've chosen to ignore it"

I am in full support of doing everything reasonable to curb emissions, and protect the environment, yet while so many people here scream about how "we should let the world court (what other "ruling body" do you think they have in mind for adjudicate grievances and enforcing "recommendations"?) take over because we're doomed if we don't do something now!", many of those same people scamper around the world impacting the hell out of it by fishing in Australia, the Seychelles, etc.

Do you think THEY are going let you do your thing if they gain control. And yes, there is a they, and they are trying to gain control over your activities, from the food you eat to the clothes you buy (how much methane went into the atmosphere for that steak on your plate? Your shirt travelled how far on a container ship!?!?), whether you think I'm paranoid or not.

How far down the road do you think it is before when you try to purchase an airline ticket you are asked the question "Reason for Travel?" Do you really think your answer of "Fishing!" is going to get you on that plane? What is going to be a good enough reason for travel. Death in the family? Job interview? No not a job interview because the overall impact on the environment with you moving someplace, and probably not to a situation where you will be able to ride your bike to work, would work against the greater good. At best there is going to be a carbon tax to begin with that may double the price of your flight. One more step towards seperating the haves, who will be able to do whatever they want, and the have nots. How much money do you have GT? I'm thinking just about everyone on this board is going to be pushed down, not elevated. Check out how Unkle Al lives http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070227c.html He can afford to since he's getting rich being the Heat Meiser.

As to the "Corporate Media" accepting the Warming. Remember their motto. If it bleeds it leads. Nothing like a headline of "You're going to drown like a polar bear! Details at 11:00!" to put asses in the seats my friend:rofl:

You made a crack earlier about the communists. It's the Warmmunists you should be worried about. Talk to people in Europe about the European Union, and the changes to their lives in effort to make them "Safer" from things they grew up with. Like food, art, education. They're REALLY happy about giving control over to a "ruling body":hmmm:
 
#47 ·
1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
What government scientist? Why does snow melt? Because it gets warmer... DUH

2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
Actually you use ice core CO2 data do figure out temperature data

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
This is fair

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.[//quote]

More warming = more evaporation

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
Polar bears will adapt to an acrtic with no ice, ro will go extict, that is a fact

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
the problem would be the stopping of the thermohylide circulation which would change currents world round and possibly cause an ice age, its a definate scientific possibility and is a fairly probable byproduct of the warming we see now.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
umm, warmer water causes coral reef bleaching

8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
Thats why the Greenland ice sheet is actually smaller then its ever been (discounting when greenland was not in its current possition

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
And there is evidence of manbearpig

10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
Thats fair, at least the 40 cm part, it might not cause massive migration but it will turn most costal cities into New Orlene's type areas.

11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim
I know nothing about this

In conclusion the government "scientist" was actually a electrical engineer and had no clue about climate science.
 
#53 ·
If there's trash on the river pick it up. We all like to think this right? Why is it different if we zoom out and look at the planet as a whole? Let's clean this place up. Screw who's "right." Let's just clean 'er up. By saying that we aren't to blame effectively excuses us from having the responsibility of the clean up. That sounds convenient. Let's just face it: We screwed this place up. Let's man up and fix it!!

-Luke
 
#54 ·
For those of you who have not taken the time to actually read all 14 chapters or articles of the IPCC report, I modestly suggest you do so. And when you do so, please pay attention to all the things the authors of the report chose to leave out of their computer model "forcings" and the reasons they did so. Also pay attention to all the qualifiers they use.

I'd also suggest that you pay attention to things like how the CO2 "forcings" in the computer models don't come close to how much CO2 that has been released actually gets into the atmosphere when measured.

The authors also chose to ignore the role sunlight plays in climate and temperatures for the simple reason that it is nearly impossible to predict how much sunlight is going to reach the earth in any given year, let alone over 25 or 100 years.

Then there is how the authors decided the computer models they relied upon where accurate. They made this decision (and say so in their report) on the basis that several computer models agree with each other on the effects of various artificially introduced amounts of CO2, etc. 90% of the time. Please note, it was not based upon observable, real world evidence, or even extrapolation of real world, observed evidence, it was based upon nothing more than the models had 90% agreement with each other. This is hardly statistical evidence or probability of evidence that something may happen. It simply means the computer models have 90% agreement among themselves.

Plus there is the inconvienent fact that all living fish, animals, birds, insect, and dead plants along with volcanoes and earth's thermal features (i.e. Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park for instance) release and contribute all but 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, fossil fuels are contributing 1%, a very insignificant amount.

There was also a very interesting study done by the American Enterprise Institute on all the climate change papers from 2004 to June of 2007, and this review study found that only 1 out of the 258 studies reviewed made any mention catastrophic climate change. This review study also found that within these 258 papers, 38% of the scientist accepted global warming; 48% were neutral; and 14% did not accept global warming. Hmm, I though you had to have well over 50% (with it being 90% either accepting or not disagreeing with it) accepting something for it to be a consensus. But I suppose I was mistaken since apparently only 38% is needed for consensus. Robert Giengengach, Ph.D., professor of Earth & Enviornmental Science at the University of Pennslvania said, "Less that 10% of the earth's history has been characterized by ice sheets at the poles. We're in the middle of a global ice-age right now, when the earth is much, much colder that it has been during most of its history."

We also have Jeff Keuter of the Geroge C. Marshall Intitute telling 'FAMILY NEWS IN FOCUS', "Unfortunately, the stakes are so high with this issue, that politicians and policymakers - well-intentioned or otherwise - have a keen interest in how this debate turns out. Some scientists stretch the fact a bit too far to try to provide the answers they are being asked to give."

I'd also suggest you all read the articles and studies found at http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm and see that there is much less consensus than the media (and some politicians) are trying to convince us there is on global warming.
 
#55 ·
I swore I wouldn't weigh in on yet another inane global warming thread but news of Al Gore being awarded a Nobel prize this morning has prompted me to ignore my better judgement and wade in.

In reading the posts above, I'm struck by how many of my fellow flyfishers fall into one of two camps when it comes to Al Gore and 'An Inconvenient Truth': those who dismiss the message out of hand and then want to shoot the messenger; and those who dislike the messenger and thus dismiss the message.

For all you 'flat-earth' skeptics, the Nobel award (a co-award, actually) should provide some glimmer that there actually are folks out there who have managed to view Gore's message without preconceptions and evaluate it on its merits instead.

The process of understanding global warming and its causes isn't nearly as black and white as many of you make it out to be. The very few real scientists among us here are trained to have open minds when it comes to what they don't understand. The rest of us could benefit from following their lead.

K
 
#57 ·
I swore I wouldn't weigh in on yet another inane global warming thread but news of Al Gore being awarded a Nobel prize this morning has prompted me to ignore my better judgement and wade in.

In reading the posts above, I'm struck by how many of my fellow flyfishers fall into one of two camps when it comes to Al Gore and 'An Inconvenient Truth': those who dismiss the message out of hand and then want to shoot the messenger; and those who dislike the messenger and thus dismiss the message.

For all you 'flat-earth' skeptics, the Nobel award (a co-award, actually) should provide some glimmer that there actually are folks out there who have managed to view Gore's message without preconceptions and evaluate it on its merits instead.

The process of understanding global warming and its causes isn't nearly as black and white as many of you make it out to be. The very few real scientists among us here are trained to have open minds when it comes to what they don't understand. The rest of us could benefit from following their lead.

K
Ironically, it seems the open-minded among us are those asking the questions. I would hardly classify those who refuse to debate or answer simple questions and instead resort to tired name-calling ("flat-earthers and "deniers" for example) as being open minded.
 
#59 ·
I swore I wouldn't weigh in on yet another inane global warming thread but news of Al Gore being awarded a Nobel prize this morning has prompted me to ignore my better judgement and wade in.
K
Hey Ken. It's the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded. Not a science prize. It's a political prize, not a "truth" prize. Although I have to agree, he is about a deserving a recipient as Arafat was... They've both done so much for peace!:rofl:

Actually it seems to be that it's the believers who are less educated in science. Did you miss the "we should believe it because science can't prove anything!" post. The problem is that there is so little understanding of the scientific method, and such a watering down of standards that folks don't understand the point of science is to prove something, not to a "reasonable doubt", but to the point that given the same conditions what you are observing is repeatable, and that the outcome is NOT due to a chance occurence. Are drugs approved when a "preponderence" of evidence shows it is safe and effective? Does the FAA apporove airplane designs for commercial application based annecdotal evidence such as "look at the smog when you fly into Los Angeles!" No they don't, so why should we allow WORLD policy that would literally turn things on their heads to be dertermined by any standards less than the most stringent?

And for those of you who think some of us are paranoid about the whole "Money and Power" angle Check this out http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/ Futures and Options trading on emissions allowances. Ya'll are dancing like monkeys while somebody's turning the crank.
 
#56 ·
Kent,

This is exactly what I'm trying to get at and get folks to think about.

As you said, "The process of understanding global warming and its causes isn't nearly as black and white as many of you make it out to be."

And you voiced why I am a skeptic, "The very few real scientists among us here are trained to have open minds when it comes to what they don't understand."

Since it is not understood; ts causes aren't clear; and there is skepticism withing Earth Scientist, Climatologist, Meteorologist, Oceanographers, and Environmental Scientist should there be all these somewhat definitive statements being made about it?
 
#61 ·
Nah, don't blame Al Gore...blame the Nobel Prize committee. From James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal.

One reason for this may be that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has had reason to be disappointed in the results when it has given awards to more traditional peacemakers.

* In 1994, the Nobel Peace Prize notoriously went to Yasser Arafat (along with Israel's prime and foreign ministers) for signing the Oslo accords--which, far from establishing peace, enabled Arafat to set up a terror statelet in the West Bank and Gaza.

* In 1973, the Nobel went to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Lu Duc Tho for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord--which, far from establishing peace, led to conquest, repression and mass murder in Indochina.

* In 1926, 1930 and 1931 the Nobel Peace Prize went to men involved in the Briand-Kellogg Pact, which "outlawed war." By 1939 it was clear how well that was working out.

When the Nobel Peace Prize was established more than a century ago, wars were largely fought between traditional nation-states over material interests. But the 20th century saw the rise of a series of aggressive ideologies--communism, Nazism, radical Islam--that render old-fashioned notions of war and peace quaint. Determined ideologues cannot be appeased; peace through strength is the only alternative to war.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee rejects strength as well as war--hence its failure to award a Nobel to Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War (Mikhail Gorbachev got one for losing, in 1990), or, say, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for averting armed international conflict in Europe for half a century after World War II.

But why Al Gore? Here's one explanation: Global warmism is an all-encompassing ideology, but one that, unlike communism, Nazism and radical Islam, has yet to inspire anyone to take up arms. Maybe in defining "peace" the Norwegians have simply decided not to set their sights too high.
 
#63 ·
It is interesting to contrast the personal sacrifice Al Gore has made for his cause (buying carbon credits from himself?) to the following from tomorrow's WSJ op ed piece.

Not Nobel Winners
October 13, 2007

In Olso yesterday, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded to the Burmese monks whose defiance against, and brutalization at the hands of, the country's military junta in recent weeks captured the attention of the Free World.

The prize was also not awarded to Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders who were arrested and in some cases beaten by police earlier this year while protesting peacefully against dictator Robert Mugabe.

Or to Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested this year and sentenced to eight years in prison for helping the pro-democracy group Block 8406.

Or to Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, who are waging a modest struggle with grand ambitions to secure basic rights for women in that Muslim country.

Or to Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, who has fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by left-wing terrorists and drug lords in his country.

Or to Garry Kasparov and the several hundred Russians who were arrested in April, and are continually harassed, for resisting President Vladimir Putin's slide toward authoritarian rule.

Or to the people of Iraq, who bravely work to rebuild and reunite their country amid constant threats to themselves and their families from terrorists who deliberately target civilians.

Or to Presidents Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili who, despite the efforts of the Kremlin to undermine their young states, stayed true to the spirit of the peaceful "color" revolutions they led in Ukraine and Georgia and showed that democracy can put down deep roots in Russia's backyard.

Or to Britain's Tony Blair, Ireland's Bertie Ahern and the voters of Northern Ireland, who in March were able to set aside decades of hatred to establish joint Catholic-Protestant rule in Northern Ireland.

Or to thousands of Chinese bloggers who run the risk of arrest by trying to bring uncensored information to their countrymen.

Or to scholar and activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, jailed presidential candidate Ayman Nour and other democracy campaigners in Egypt.

Or, posthumously, to lawmakers Walid Eido, Pierre Gemayel, Antoine Ghanem, Rafik Hariri, George Hawi and Gibran Tueni; journalist Samir Kassir; and other Lebanese citizens who've been assassinated since 2005 for their efforts to free their country from Syrian control.

Or to the Reverend Phillip Buck; Pastor Chun Ki Won and his organization, Durihana; Tim Peters and his Helping Hands Korea; and Liberty in North Korea, who help North Korean refugees escape to safety in free nations.

These men and women put their own lives and livelihoods at risk by working to rid the world of violence and oppression. Let us hope they survive the coming year so that the Nobel Prize Committee might consider them for the 2008 award.
 
#66 ·
As a scientist, I'm tempted to say that the denial of human influence on global warming is the most egregious example of the willful disregard of science I've seen in a long, long time. But, as an evolutionary biologist, I must say that it's the sad truth that it falls a very distant second, at best.
 
#70 ·
Ken and Richard,
Once again insightful words from the two of you. Unfortunately, it looks like those words were lost on most of those here. I don't know how many times I sat down today to write something profound, but I just couldn't do it without torching others, or getting torched myself.
Thanks again,
Jeff
 
#74 ·
thanks for clarifiying mr garton. i am on the opposite side of the scientific debate, obviously. yes, the current change in climate is directly related to human intervention. when probability numbers from scientific studies, published in refereed journals, are in the high 90s, you have just read information as close to certainty as any scientist is willing to put forward. OTOH, you may choose to listen to the drug addict or the groper or the propoganda put out by the Gas and Oil folks, your choice.

for those of you who would rather bash the messenger, i feel'for'yah'cause you folks are truly closed minded. you are demonstrating for all who have read your posts just how uninformed you have chosen to remain. you might ask yourself if you have what it takes to dedicate your current life to voicing concern for an important event, any overwhelming global issue. of course we both know the answer to that, so go ahead and bash the messenger, that is not going to solve climate change, but i am sure you must feel better by displaying that part of your anatomy.

the WSJ is an interesting media source but i always have it for breakfast with a large helping of information from 5 other media sources. at least that way i can get a better perception of what might be actually be happening in our world. try it, you may come out ahead.
 
#76 ·
Just to make sure I undertand your postion, and where that position arises from... who is "the Drug addict", the groper, and the propogandist you refer to. I'm sure you have some specific dates and times and comments made that you can refer to.

Also, what is the "WSJ" and the 5 other sources of information you reply on. I'd love to be enlightened.
 
#75 ·
Who would a thought a Dynamite Magnate and his fortune would cause so much controversy...oh maybe that's the point- the Peace Prize helps provoke action. If skepticism is all it provokes that's better than nothing. On the other hand, there are plenty of fence sitters that might enter the fray with some action that leads to overall benefit. I'd like to think that benefit will translate into a lower impact on the environment, better fishing, sustainable forests and efficient transportation in your own vehicle using power that is renewable. Better that than our climate becomes that of Phoenix...

The Peace Prize should have been given for whomever invented, As W calls it, "the internets". What a powerful tool for dissemination of information. Even look at this thread, guys are quoting Australian blogs, NASA statistics, WSJ editorials before they are printed- all in the space of minutes. If you have a computer and half a brain you can find whatever you want to justify your opinion. On the other hand with that same computer you can instantly become aware of injustice, oppression, destruction, corruption, intolerance, bigotry...In this last month for instance, those Burmese monks twenty years ago would all have been assassinated without a trace were it not for the internet. It is a version of Big Brother that is not the dystopia Orwell imagined, if anything it is utopian and the most potent tool for peace we have.

A vast collective brain, full of ideas.

Ideas like Mingo's (the only one that made me laugh in this whole righteous thread):

He cheeses out eco-friendly flatulence that smells like crushed fruit
 
#81 ·
you may choose to listen to the drug addict or the groper or the propoganda put out by the Gas and Oil folks, your choice.

for those of you who would rather bash the messenger, i feel'for'yah'cause you folks are truly closed minded.
I assume these personal attacks are upon Rush Limbaugh (the drug addict), Bill O'Rielly (the groper) and Dick Cheney/Halliburton/"big oil". Missed an opportunity to call Dick "the sniper".

Does discounting the strong opinions of these openly conservative messengers through personal attack demonstrate an open mind?

Gore chose to couch his equally strong opinions within a documentary, passed off to the public and school children as "truth". Open minds are obligated to step back and evaluate controversial science behind some of his claims before running like lemmings to the Prius dealer.
 
#82 ·
Gore's book/movie are filled with flaws, as already pointed out and his motives are purely political/money driven. The man flies around in a personal, private jet and owns a 12,000 square foot mansion in Nashville. That is hipocrisy at it's worst. And the Hollywood stars who support this fraud make me nauseous as they are some of the biggest consumers in the world what with their multiple houses, private jets, multiple gas-guzzling vehicles, etc. Please.

Look, I'm all for environmental awareness and making the world a cleaner place, but not at the expense of developing nations, many of whom don't give a rat's ass about driving a Prius or Carbon buy-backs--all they want is clean water to drink and to not die of entirely preventable diseases, like diarrhea. Gores "Green" movement is basically a bunch of elitists who are going to decimate these countries with their flawed science and greed.

Makes me sick.

CS
 
#84 ·
i find it interesting that nobody mentions the mini ice age that occurred between 1300 and 1830 or so. Prior to that wine grapes were being grown in england. crops were grow at higher elevations in Scotland than they are now. And Greenland was actually inhabited. When you hear comparisons of temperatures they are comparing today's temps to those at the coldest of the mini ice age. Not from before then. I once heard a climitologist say that in the past subtropical forests exisited here as well as glaciers. That is the natural range of temperatures.
 
#86 ·
Considering that changes in solar radiation weren't included in the report-- the satellites provided an incomplete record or some such-- yeah, 90 percent certaintly is pretty much unreliable. When you ignore changes in the primary source of heat, not to mention energy, then what you've done isn't worth a lot, assuming that changes took place.

Of course, when the 'right wing' National Geographic Society says that Mars is seeing the same overall global warming as the earth, that's an instance of changes that aren't worth noting...I guess.

Kerry S had it right: it is all about money and power and the desire to make people behave as you wish them to...
 
#87 ·
A good friend of mine drives around with a bumper sticker that offers some advice I think might benefit a few of you guys: "Don't believe everything you think."

There is so so much that needs to be said here, but to be perfectly honest, you chaps have rendered me nearly speechless. I read what most of you have written here and all I can really think to say is good Christ help us!
 
#89 ·
had to go back a ways to find the 'official' climate study report. the actual p value they reported was .96 pointing at human caused effects. i guess i would have to flip that coin and point out the nay sayers seem to be the brain washed in this debate.

from ALL of the reading i have done, excluding opinion pieces and the trash put out by 'scientists' on the payroll of the gas and oil industry, there is no question in my mind regarding climate change.

now, from a purely scientific point of view, of course we do not understand all of the relationships of all the possible variables in all of their zillions of combinations. we never will.

oh, and phislster, i taught graduate level statistics and happen to have spent a career developing computer models of complex systems. anytime a global scientific community can conclude with 96% certainty, and they ignored the ice cap melting data, you have a certainty staring you in the face.

now go ahead and flip on the FAUX Fantasy Network for the latest arguement against and in justification of the worst administration this planet has ever suffered through. or, you can post a link to a refereed journal article which presents evidence to the counter. now remember, only recognized scientific journals with a board which screens the articles prior to publication. i'll stand by...................
 
#92 ·
GT, there is no easy countering study to throw out there, because single studies will be dismissed by those who believe, and there is no competing effort to the IPCC. You won't accept studies that show that the ice may have "moved" in the arctic even if the probabilities are higher than IPCCs, and is in different places and isn't necessarily being covered by satellite observation, or studies that show that it may have increased in the antarctic. You want one that says the majority of warming is not man caused. There isn't one because the IPCC is a collection of by and large governement fed scientists on a never ending gravy train with an agenda. Not even "big oil" can afford to compete with that. All we can do is look at the IPCC for flaws. I actually find LOTS of "final" probability numbers from the IPCC, and as soon as I can wade through them I'll respond to the 96% number. The chair said 90% repeatedly in Oslow. Backslidding by them or did you find a probability stat that wasn't the final anthroprogenic forcing number? Not accusing you of anything on that. Like I said I've found 3 or 4 numbers, and none are as high as 96% yet. As someone who has lived an breathed stats you know there's a HUGE difference 90 and 96. A scientist making a grant proposal would KILL for those 6 points, and desecrate the body for 2.5 more :rofl: I'm actually amazed you would defend the 90% number, even if it turns out to be wrong, given your background. Perhaps you should examine your bias versus your obviously extensive training?

Here's some info for you.

From the IPCC summary for policy makers

"A few areas of the Globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of Antarctica" All this time I thought it was a closed system? Somebody must have left a window open to let the heat out somewhere.

"no significant trends of antarctic sea ice extent are apparent since 1978" Lets just ignore that because we don't know why and it hurts our study.

"changes globally in tropical and extratropical storm intensity and frequency are dominitated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no signficant trends evident over the 20th century."

"No systemic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events in the limited areas analyzed". Hmmm... I thought all those hail storms through texas and oklahoma last year were from global warming?

The IPCC says Volcanic activity has no impact and the effects are short term. Mount St. Helens spit out about 2 MILLION tons of sulfur dioxide between 1980 and 1988. In 1999 the US put out about 20 THOUSAND tons. Thats mount St. Helens alone. Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines (some spell it with an F) in 1991, injected a minimum of 17 MEGATONS into the air! Acid Rain anyone! By all means ignoring the volcanoes is good science!

Let's talk mitigation and socio-political issues they won't ever face. The IPCC says methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Rice paddies pump between 50 and 100 million tons of methane into the atmosphere. US methane, emissions have steadily declined since 1990. In 1997, the most recent year a quick search could come up with it was under 30 tons. You know, I bet with rising populations, rice production will remain stable and won't be going up at all! :rofl:

Wanna go on. You can find the journal articles that cover all of those statements I made. I'm not gonna wipe folks arses for them. If you care just google Methane Rice or Volcanic Emissions or Tornado Frequency... Or don't.

I've never said things aren't warming up. I said it's not as bad as the IPCC says, and that the contribution of the US to it are not that big a deal. We should definitely clean up, but having the UN and the World Court set and enforce rules for the world is a recipe for a socialist disaster. I will fight to the end to keep my kids from growing up in a third world country. Folks who feel as you do on the other hand seem to believe that if we weren't industrialized, things would remain in a steady state forever. That's arrogant and downright silly.

Oh and congrats on that melon on your shoulders. I only taught stats to undergrads as a TA. However there's a difference between "complex systems" and our planets ecology.
 
#93 ·
yes philster, there are ZERO refereed journal articles refuting climate change. your phony arguement regarding why, is just so much hooey. if, in fact, there was any clear scientific evidence that climate chage was not occurring, i can think of a dozen refereed journals who would all be more than happy to publish that study.

perhaps you didn't notice, but a chunk of the antartic the size of florida split off this summer. hard to ignore i'd say. and did you notice that the model which led to the published .96 figure by the IPCC was incorrect in predicting the artic melt off this summer?? had that been taken into account, i am sure the p value would have been moved to at least .98.

please, no more opinions and phoney rationales, if you have hard scientific evidence that climate change is fake, post the link, otherwise i might suggest you recognize that FFN has indeed been successful in brain washin'yah.

events occurring in our environment are just another example of 'complex systems'. now some would have you believe that you cannot understand the prime variables involved and therefore you can't model such systems. i would suggest that it is indeed possible to build such models and to indeed offer up predictions that tend to hold water.
 
#95 ·
yes philster, there are ZERO refereed journal articles refuting climate change. your phony arguement regarding why, is just so much hooey. if, in fact, there was any clear scientific evidence that climate chage was not occurring, i can think of a dozen refereed journals who would all be more than happy to publish that study.
.
Calm down. I'm not arguing that climate change is happening. I said in my last post I KNOW it's getting warmer. It does that, and then it gets cold again. It happens. Lots of things die everytime it does. We're arguing whether WE are THE cause and whether WE can alter it. Stop saying I'm "refuting climate change" I never have, and it's like arguing with a 5 year old...

Send me the info on that Florida sized glacier. Larsen B was about that big, but that was 2002? I honestly havent' heard of one this year.
 
#94 ·
Certainly a tough call...weeding out the truth from all this global warming evidence...natural cyclical stuff, or human-caused??? Maybe a volcano somewhere will go off really big, and cause a nuclear winter, making all of this discussion moot. Or maybe one of our insane political leaders will set off a nuke somewhere, with the same result. Or how 'bout the horror of a genetically engineered and unstoppable virus set loose by an insane radical terrorist, beyond the help of the WHO or CDC, decimating the earth's population?
I'm usually more worried about that drunk driver swerving over the centerline and taking me out as I return from gassing up the rig the evening before a planned fishing trip. Will my skin cancer get worse... (gotta go in soon for a "mole procedure")? Of course I don't have any dependents or progeny to worry about, so the "future of the future" is less important to me than is RIGHT NOW. I try to live "day-to-day" and "in the moment," as much as possible. I can't believe i wasted my time reading through this thread when I "should have been" out fishing. Nothing has been resolved or clarified here. I just had to toss in my $.02, though, didn't I? :beathead::beathead::beathead:
I think Al Gore is an embarrassment to conservationists everywhere. That doesn't negate my hatred for Bush/Cheney and their ilk, though.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top