And what do you think the people who are huge Global Warming activists/supporter are doing. They are doing the exact same thing you are just accusing Mojo of. Which is why I have presented you with studies and facts for people to research and come to their own conclusion.
Actually, most of the people I know who believe that man is having an impact on the climate are looking at what credible climatologists say. I agree that the "activists" are simply the opposite side of the coin from MojoMan, but if you look at the science, the Earth is warming (when you look at it over hundreds of years rather than tens) and the warming has accelerated as we have pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't think we should try to reduce emissions because of AGW. I believe we have a much more compelling reason to take steps towards the goal of reducing carbon emissions, which is to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
and pay for what? Let's all pay taxes to do what? That is the scam right there he is trying to uncover. If there were solid science/facts behind which proved Global Warming was caused by man without a reasonable doubt than yes lets all get on board pay our fair share and stop it. But that is the point. There isnt any sound science behind it at all! It is a shame you stopped there you would have found out a lot of useful scientific information. He is only trying to disprove the otherside because of their own political motivations. thats all. He has nothing to gain personally unlike others from this. Like I said in a earlier post my father who is also a professor has said in his line of work they get grants from the Govt to do research. The govt often funds and gives grants based on researching for their political views. Then of course you are going to have scientists try to skew data to prove something in line with who is providing the funds. This is what Roger Revelle did and this is how Global Warming got started.
Thank you for putting thought and logic in your post so we can have a discussion. I agree we need to protect this planet and do what we can to stop harmful pollution. Also there are many credible climatologists who disagree which is where I provided all my data here. Why are these people not heard in the media or shut down? I think the leaked emails explained why they make an active effort to block these people out. Regarding CO2 emissions. Gore and his scientists tried to link CO2 with Warmer Temperatures by using graphs that go back 50-100 years. They show how more CO2 = Higher Temperatures. Well this graph goes up in smoke when you look at the last 10 years since it has been cooling while CO2 is still rising. This discredits the link between CO2 and temperature. There was never a link to be made in the first place. As for your last statement I 100% agree with you. We need to do the research for renewable and alternative sources of energy so we can get off foreign oil dependance. I 100% agree with you here. But let's not do it behind a scam called Global Warming which is basically used so they can do Cap and Trade (Tax). The research needs to happen for new sources of energy but the reason should not be behind a claim that is based on bad science. On a more political note I am glad Obama has signed off for more nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is a very efficient energy source and is actually very clean and safe with the technology we have today. As many of you know I am no Obama fan I can still admit when he does something right.
Perhaps I missed it but who in this thread has been citing Al Gore in regard to proof of Global Warming?
Again with the name calling. Anytime you guys cannot persuade people with the content of your arguments, your resort to personal attacks. That obviously speaks to the content of your character much more than it does to mine. A few storms or a few years of warming, or cooling, do not prove anything. That is my position and I have never departed from it, nor have I ever said anything to the contrary. Your assertion that this thread is intended to "prove" that global warming or anthropogenic global warming is not happening is just plain wrong. And as many times as we have gone over this, I do not know how you could sincerely be unaware of that. The AGW alarmists have routinely promoted their alarmist theories using data and information that is in many cases one-sided and biased, and in a surprisingly large number if instances, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong. The proponents of AGW theory have made it a routine practice to knowingly and intentionally ignore evidence that does not support their theories. This thread clearly provides an opportunity for people here on this board to observe and consider a broader range of weather and climate information relating to this important issue than the AGW alarmism movement would prefer to have disseminated. Perhaps that is why the advocates of currently popular AGW theories here on this board are so upset by this kind of a discussion. It is certainly OK with me, and others who share my views on this subject, for proponents of AGW theory to publish their ideas and share their opinions on this topic. But this apparently only works one way. The intolerance of AGW alarmists towards information and opinions that differ from their own on this topic is rather unseemly, to say the least. Also, if the positions held by the AGW alarmism crowd are as well founded and immutable as they constantly insist, then they would not be so easily animated by the presentation of opposing views. But almost any presentation of a divergent point of view drives you guys positively wild. You guys need to learn that you cannot shout down opposing viewpoints on this issue, and no one is impressed or moved by your name calling. This is an open discussion, the debate continues, and your personal perspective on this topic only constitutes one possible point of view.
That is a great point. The climate is a very complex system that is still not completely understood. There is always a degree of uncertainty to scientific theories and global warming does have quite a bit of uncertainty. The problem though is what does that mean to policy? We have been essentially running an uncontrolled geo-engineering experiment with our climate for the last 150 years and at the moment the science indicates that there could be some serious results of that experment. So why take the risk? Certainly the possibility exists that the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases we have been pumping in will not have a big affect on the climate but by consider what we gain by addressing those. We remove our dependence on foreign energy sources, we develop renewable sources, we conserve more energy, we develop a lot of new technologies, and we reduce many other pollutants. Those side benefits alone are enough to undertake a policy of redcuing greenhouse emissions. Consider that in recent debates many posters have cited the side benefits we got from manned spaceflight as a reason for continuing NASA funding for the Constellation / Orion program. Why not then address reducing greenhouse emissions for the same reason?
My personal intolerance is for people using anecdotal examples and sniping to "completely debunk" the AGW theory. A few unseemly emails, an incorrect prediction for 20 years into the future and a little cold weather does not disprove AGW theory. I'm sure you agree. I wouldn't have intolerance for some hard, published science that disagrees with AGW theory -- I just haven't seen any. Then again, while I believe AGW exists and could be a potential problem far into the future, I'm not an alarmist so I'm not motivated enough to seek such things.
What huge decline? According to a graph posted on here the temp hasn't been trending global temps since 1998 True there was a spike in 1998 but it shows that temps have still been on average higher than then and are on pace to match 1998. Of course its climate change. Global warming by definition is "climate change". Also its a fact that atmospheric CO2 does retain heat. Just look at Venus for an example. Yes compared to O2 and N2 CO2 is a trace gas but we are talking about tons and tons of it in the atmosphere. I mean seriously if CO2 was so low as to be irrelevant all the plants would die. Something I presumed you learned in highschool biology class, that plants need CO2 to survive. On a climactic scale the impact of trace gases have a profound impact. Consider that the amount of CFC's was way less than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere yet those did have a profound impact on the Ozone layer. As it happens as we have phased out CFC's the Ozone layer appears to be recovering. From what you have posted your facts appear to be very cherry picked and also ignore many other facts. You've asked for sound science yet your critique doesn't appear to be based on that sound science but a cherry picking of data. As I stated before I fully accept that there is uncertainty in regard to the idea of anthropogenic global warming what we are seeing though is a good likelyhood of it occuring. That is really the most you can ask from science. What matters is the policy debate and as I stated I don't think this is a risk worth taking and the side benefits of addressing anthropogenic global warming pretty much justify themselves.
Did you look at the chart I posted a few pages back? That is what I was using to support my thoughts and that is published science. I don't think anyone is denying the earth is getting warmer, just whether or not it is cause for concern
I totally agree. Thank you for phrasing it that way. AGW theory has not been "completely debunked," not by a long-shot. But neither has it been proven or adequately demonstrated to be trustworthy and reliable science, either. The credibility of AGW theories, along with the people and organizations who promote them, has been tainted severely by the recent scandals and by these people's unwillingness to open their propositions to a complete range of scrutiny and open debate. AGW theory is just not ready for prime time, and it is certainly not developed to a stage that would justify a multi-trillion dollar redistribution of wealth that the promoters of AGW theory do not even try to suggest would have any material effect on the altering the climate issues that are supposedly the reason for this whole effort. The AGW scientists need to keep working on on their theories. However, going forward they need to be committed to doing that in an open and honest manner if they want their theories to be regarded as trustworthy and reliable by the majority of the public. And this sort of an honest scientific approach is important not only for their own credibility, but for the field of science more broadly. The climate change community has done some real damage to the reputation of science generally by their shenanigans around this issue. We need for science and all scientists to be committed to upholding the highest standards of their profession. Of course, that also includes climate science.
I hope you don't mean this: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5088254&postcount=160 AGW would only be visible in the last 100-200 years. Putting that on a chart involving 542 million years (meaning AGW would be involved in 0.0000369% of the chart) hardly shows anything at all other than that the earth warms and cools. No one's disputing that climate changes on the planet. I don't see how this helps disprove AGW.
Suns Rockets Fan just got the new Radiohead Amnesiac CD cause he's partying like its 2001. Next thing you know he's going to go Inhofe and get like 400 no 600 no 700 scientists who agree with him in order to bolster his case (most of whom are not scientists nor do they agree with him) and cite that as persuasive evidence over the hundreds of thousands who disagree.
See, what confuses me about you, MojoMan, and why I cannot take what you say seriously, is that you appear to agree that anecdotal weather patterns are irrelevant, yet post things of this sort: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4978114&postcount=1 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5008701&postcount=71 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5008706&postcount=72 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5008717&postcount=76 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5082902&postcount=132 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5084728&postcount=140 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5084765&postcount=142 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5087686&postcount=153 If you argee with me and you don't think anecdotal weather patterns are relevant to climate change, why do you continue post these? Are you just chatting nonchalantly about the weather, or do you think these occurances that happen every year (there's always a record cold temperate and a record hot temperature every year somewhere in the world) actually discredit AGW theory? If you believe the latter, then you are lying when you say you agree with what I posted; otherwise, I ask you why you post about these things and try to rope in global warming somehow? Not only that, but when you introduced yourself to this entire issue on this forum, you used a hypothetical picture of what the earth MIGHT have looked like 12,000 years ago as your evidence. You didn't link any published article. You didn't show any data to support your claim. You simply displayed an artist's rendering. You continue to do so on a regular basis. This is why I don't take you seriously. I can't speak for anyone else. You appear to push a double-standard and cannot really back up anything you say with good, legitimate, well-accepted science. AGW alarmists (again, I am not an alarmist) do have science to back it up. Instead, you choose to dig at tiny cracks in a solid foundation while not providing any foundation of your own. And no, a few unscrupulous-seeming emails and an incorrect long-term prediction do not make all climate science invalid or suspect. What's that saying? You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Uh no. I was making fun of your argument. Use inference next time. Or just read some of the other 40 billion threads we've had on this topic. Heck, I've already made this point in this same thread back on pg 4.
I would not say that anecdotal weather patterns are completely irrelevant. That is too strong. What I agreed with you on was your point that these weather events do not "completely debunk" AGW theories. These two ideas are quite different, and you cannot easily leap from one to the other, as you have tried to do here. Thank you for raising this issue as well. I have wanted to address it, but your post here is the first post that has framed the issue in a context that is sufficiently civil in its tone to warrant a reply. The hypothetical picture that I have included is a depiction of what the Earth probably looked like during the last ice age. Do you dispute that there was an ice age approximately 12,000 years ago? Or do you dispute that the Earth was covered with ice and snow during the last ice age? I am not clear what you objection is to this image. If you are not disputing either of these points, but are just complaining because it is a depiction and not an actual photograph, or if you are just complaining about the quality of the artwork, that is really kind of silly. As far as I am aware, there is no real controversy about the occurrence of the last ice age. So, I am not particularly clear why it is controversial with you. As far as a link to a brief article about the last ice age, here is one, if you really need to see it: http://nature.ca/notebooks/englIsh/iceage.htm If you want to see something longer or more in depth, I am sure your Google search engine works as well as mine. Feel free to look it up for yourself. Also, the History Channel, the National Geographic Channel, and the Science Channel broadcast shows relating to the ice age with some frequency. You might want to check one of them out. You say. There is not a solid foundation for currently popular Anthropogenic Global Warming theories. On this point, we will just have to agree to disagree.
there you go again. If you are too simple minded to cite real scientific facts than fine. If you can't explain the few simple questions and facts I brought up then okay. Go ahead and be ignorant and continue to drink the kool aid. Do you not realize there are just as many people who disagree with you? You are only hearing one side from the media. Of course your mind is too simple to understand basic scientific procedures. That is fine I will leave you be.
No, when you are talking about "climate," anecdotal weather patters have about as much weight as any other anecdotal evidence, which is to say none at all. Because it isn't evidence, then add that to the fact that the picture attempts to mislead one into believing that the Earth ahs been steadily warming since that ice age, which it has not. As B-Bob posted in your initial attempt to appear knowledgeable on this subject, after that ice age, the Earth warmed for 2000-3000 years, and since then has been remarkably steady until very recently. The Earth's climate, like any natural system, has natural ups and downs (as you can clearly see in the data posted by TSchmal above), but the trend since the 1700s has been steadily up. The objection to that picture is the implication you are attempting to give to people. Not him, credible climatologists. You are free to disagree, but it isn't one opinion against another, it is your (biased) opinion against the vast preponderance of the evidence compiled by the vast majority of the climatologists in the world. Maybe you and Ed Brandon can disprove the whole thing.
