99Tiger Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:Valid point. However, I am also concerned that researchers are claiming "intimidation" when pressed for details on their "science". They won't give the details even when funded by the government!

I agree that scientists should be more forthcoming with the data from their work and the models they've developed to reach their conclusions. That would start a whole different debate over the assumptions used in developing models. You'll have different scientists claiming that different factors are more important.

Absolutely, which is why models are suppposed to be validated.

Quote:However, I do think that developing models that stand up to scrutiny would be a step in the right direction and help move the debate from whether or not it's a problem to analyzing the effects of industrialization into the future and seeing what, if any, actions can be taken to mitigate adverse impacts.

That is being done. I don't see money being pulled from the effort. The real problem is the mainstream media overrepresenting what the models teach us. This has been going on for decades. What is worse is that more scientists are overstating their case, to the point of fiction.
That likely will get funding pulled, which is probably the right thing to do.

Listened to a mini-debate on global warming on the radio today. The pro-warming person presented it as common knowledge that we all agree on. When the skeptic (can't call him the anti-warming person) asked about Crichton, she dismissed him as a "science-fiction writer". When the skeptic asked about a certain scientist, she dismissed him as funded by the oil companies, and then warned us to beware of people funded by oil companies. The skeptic said the evidence was that there had been only a one degree rise in the last 100 years (offering her a softball) and she said quite rightly, that one degree was a lot, but then she had to prove it with this: "think of your freezer. One degree is the difference between all your food staying frozen or thawing".

Yeah, if it is the one degree between 31.5 and 32.5, maybe.

She also said that global warming didn't cause the hurricanes, just that it intensified them. OK, but what will be said if this season's starms are not as bad or worse than last year's? That we are cooling again?

FWIW, she recommends not leaving your cellphone chargers and toasters plugged in when not is use as a way to fight global warming. Can't hurt, but it seems it wouldn't make much difference.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:FWIW, she recommends not leaving your cellphone chargers and toasters plugged in when not is use as a way to fight global warming. Can't hurt, but it seems it wouldn't make much difference.

Cellphone chargers I understand (and every little bit helps).

But toasters? What part of "open circuit" am I missing?

BTW, if you really want to fight global warming: use a clothes line, especially during the summer.

You not only save that energy, you don't then use the AC to cool your house back down.

I'm surprised these "advocates" don't come up w/ more useful suggestions.

And not all scientists buy into the global warming, and I've never been funded by an oil company.

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:id imagine we wont do anything about all this until new york and san fran are around 10 feet underwater. and i dont care if you think its a man made problem or not (although if you think we can just rape the earth and do whatever the f we want and not have to suffer the consequences, you need to get your head checked), the question is how to solve the problem. but that would require admitting there is a problem.

Yes, and that requires valid, well-performed science, not the fear-mongering that makes the nightly news, and apparently gives you a feeling of superiority.

i just cant wrap my brain around how people can take such a trivial stance to the only place we know as home. we get one chance. when its screwed up, its done forever. even if global warming was non existient and the environemnt was in perfect shape, why would you still go out there and desecrate it? for once, just forget about politics and money and all the other crap that just dosent matter and just think about the real issue at hand and stop being so selfish.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:id imagine we wont do anything about all this until new york and san fran are around 10 feet underwater. and i dont care if you think its a man made problem or not (although if you think we can just rape the earth and do whatever the f we want and not have to suffer the consequences, you need to get your head checked), the question is how to solve the problem. but that would require admitting there is a problem.

Yes, and that requires valid, well-performed science, not the fear-mongering that makes the nightly news, and apparently gives you a feeling of superiority.

i just cant wrap my brain around how people can take such a trivial stance to the only place we know as home. we get one chance. when its screwed up, its done forever. even if global warming was non existient and the environemnt was in perfect shape, why would you still go out there and desecrate it? for once, just forget about politics and money and all the other crap that just dosent matter and just think about the real issue at hand and stop being so selfish.

Care to be specific, or would that take some thought, and *gasp* some knowledge before you get on your soapbox.

Just exactly what do you mean by "screwing it up"? The world has gone through a variety of epochs: ice ages, warm periods, flooding, droughts, that you would consider "screwed up". These things have happened from nature alone, man was just a bystander.

When it's convenient, you argue for protecting the environment "for our children", which of course is completely selfish b/c what about other people's children?

When it's convenient, you argue for protecting the environment for people...except when it's inconvenient to protect the environment for pepole (for example using DDT or plastics).

In short, protecting the environment simply means you bitching to people whenever you feel superior. And YOU talk about a trivial stance!

You have no standard definition of "screwed up" because there is none; so try shutting up for once. "Better to look like a fool and say nothing rather than open your mouth and prove it."

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:id imagine we wont do anything about all this until new york and san fran are around 10 feet underwater. and i dont care if you think its a man made problem or not (although if you think we can just rape the earth and do whatever the f we want and not have to suffer the consequences, you need to get your head checked), the question is how to solve the problem. but that would require admitting there is a problem.

Yes, and that requires valid, well-performed science, not the fear-mongering that makes the nightly news, and apparently gives you a feeling of superiority.

i just cant wrap my brain around how people can take such a trivial stance to the only place we know as home. we get one chance. when its screwed up, its done forever. even if global warming was non existient and the environemnt was in perfect shape, why would you still go out there and desecrate it? for once, just forget about politics and money and all the other crap that just dosent matter and just think about the real issue at hand and stop being so selfish.

Care to be specific, or would that take some thought, and *gasp* some knowledge before you get on your soapbox.

Just exactly what do you mean by "screwing it up"? The world has gone through a variety of epochs: ice ages, warm periods, flooding, droughts, that you would consider "screwed up". These things have happened from nature alone, man was just a bystander.

When it's convenient, you argue for protecting the environment "for our children", which of course is completely selfish b/c what about other people's children?

When it's convenient, you argue for protecting the environment for people...except when it's inconvenient to protect the environment for pepole (for example using DDT or plastics).

In short, protecting the environment simply means you bitching to people whenever you feel superior. And YOU talk about a trivial stance!

You have no standard definition of "screwed up" because there is none; so try shutting up for once. "Better to look like a fool and say nothing rather than open your mouth and prove it."

funny i dont remember saying or arguing for any of those things. i must have missed where i posted all of that. my only question was why is it such a burden for us to care for the only place we call home. where does politics even enter into that statement? and wow, you used the phrase "shut up" to conclude your argument. so much for intelligent debate. i could go talk to some local 5th graders if i wanted to get down to that level.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:funny i dont remember saying or arguing for any of those things. i must have missed where i posted all of that. my only question was why is it such a burden for us to care for the only place we call home.

And what does "care for" look like, exactly?

Quote: where does politics even enter into that statement?

What else do you think politics is about? How much simpler do you want it?

Quote:and wow, you used the phrase "shut up" to conclude your argument. so much for intelligent debate. i could go talk to some local 5th graders if i wanted to get down to that level.

You already write at that level. You use such generic phrases (like "care for") with no definition of that action, and certainly no analysis of what consequences such actions might bring...
Such superiority yet with nothing to back it up. That's a recipe for disaster. Lots of talk w/ no specifics, no metrics, no contingency plans. You're precisely the kind of person who is ruining the environment.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:id imagine we wont do anything about all this until new york and san fran are around 10 feet underwater. and i dont care if you think its a man made problem or not (although if you think we can just rape the earth and do whatever the f we want and not have to suffer the consequences, you need to get your head checked), the question is how to solve the problem. but that would require admitting there is a problem.

Yes, and that requires valid, well-performed science, not the fear-mongering that makes the nightly news, and apparently gives you a feeling of superiority.

i just cant wrap my brain around how people can take such a trivial stance to the only place we know as home. we get one chance. when its screwed up, its done forever. even if global warming was non existient and the environemnt was in perfect shape, why would you still go out there and desecrate it? for once, just forget about politics and money and all the other crap that just dosent matter and just think about the real issue at hand and stop being so selfish.

Mr. Huskie, all we want is for both sides of the debate to be presented without prejudice. When you say to 'admit " to the problem, that presupposes that that part of the debate is over, when in fact it has not yet happened. A lot of people here take certain positions based on faith - white priviledge, Biblical inerrancy, global warming - and proceed from the position that they know the facts, so let's just go on to step 2. In the case of global warming, this seems to be your position. I think there is a lot of evidence for other views, but opposing views are shouted down, demeaned and discredited. It is like telling a nation of Jerry Falwells that other views may have validity. Some people interpret the bad hurricanes last year as a sign of global warming, some say it is a sign of God's wrath. People holding either of those positions dismiss other other interpretations and wonder why we aren't doing something about it - either reducing energy usage, etc, or stopping our sinful ways. Once again, you appear to be in the first group.

Some Americans are single-issue voters, whether the issue be environtalism, race, taxes, foreign policy, war, or just a family legacy of supporting a particular party. If you are one of these, and your overriding single issue is the environment, fine, that is your right as an American, but if so, i think it should be noted that a lot of environmental issues have negative economic impacts which by definition you must accept. For example, restrictions on oil exploration and development in Alaska and offshore may help the envoronment, but they also affect the price and availability of gasoline.

I saw an interesting episode of Nova the other day, where they were talking about, not only global warming, but also evidence of "Global Dimming". The short of it is there is evidence that while greenhouse gases may be warming the planet, particle pollution may actually be colling the planet. As particle pollution is being cut back in some places, greenhouse gases are still being produced and this could lead to the dimming to end while the warming will continue.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I saw an interesting episode of Nova the other day, where they were talking about, not only global warming, but also evidence of "Global Dimming". The short of it is there is evidence that while greenhouse gases may be warming the planet, particle pollution may actually be colling the planet. As particle pollution is being cut back in some places, greenhouse gases are still being produced and this could lead to the dimming to end while the warming will continue.

Yes, I've heard this theory. As they cleaned up diesel fuel, and improved cities' air quality in other ways, the particles no longer reflected sunlight away from the earth. There are other effects not anticipated!

Not that poor air quality is desirable, it just shows that there are often unanticipated consequences.

However, there are many efforts by people (EPA folks included) to dictate the particulate count in the air. Local government would be responsible for maintaining these levels. It should be noted that this has NO basis in science! It's a shot in the dark b/c some particles contribute to asthma and other respitory ailments.
BUT, things like POLLEN are particles, they would be part of the count. Do you really want to have cities cut down trees to lower their particle counts?

So, we again have advocates who want to "care for" this world, but who are likely to destroy it because they don't have any plan or guidelines for what "care for" means.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:id imagine we wont do anything about all this until new york and san fran are around 10 feet underwater. and i dont care if you think its a man made problem or not (although if you think we can just rape the earth and do whatever the f we want and not have to suffer the consequences, you need to get your head checked), the question is how to solve the problem. but that would require admitting there is a problem.

Yes, and that requires valid, well-performed science, not the fear-mongering that makes the nightly news, and apparently gives you a feeling of superiority.

i just cant wrap my brain around how people can take such a trivial stance to the only place we know as home. we get one chance. when its screwed up, its done forever. even if global warming was non existient and the environemnt was in perfect shape, why would you still go out there and desecrate it? for once, just forget about politics and money and all the other crap that just dosent matter and just think about the real issue at hand and stop being so selfish.

Mr. Huskie, all we want is for both sides of the debate to be presented without prejudice. When you say to 'admit " to the problem, that presupposes that that part of the debate is over, when in fact it has not yet happened. A lot of people here take certain positions based on faith - white priviledge, Biblical inerrancy, global warming - and proceed from the position that they know the facts, so let's just go on to step 2. In the case of global warming, this seems to be your position. I think there is a lot of evidence for other views, but opposing views are shouted down, demeaned and discredited. It is like telling a nation of Jerry Falwells that other views may have validity. Some people interpret the bad hurricanes last year as a sign of global warming, some say it is a sign of God's wrath. People holding either of those positions dismiss other other interpretations and wonder why we aren't doing something about it - either reducing energy usage, etc, or stopping our sinful ways. Once again, you appear to be in the first group.

Some Americans are single-issue voters, whether the issue be environtalism, race, taxes, foreign policy, war, or just a family legacy of supporting a particular party. If you are one of these, and your overriding single issue is the environment, fine, that is your right as an American, but if so, i think it should be noted that a lot of environmental issues have negative economic impacts which by definition you must accept. For example, restrictions on oil exploration and development in Alaska and offshore may help the envoronment, but they also affect the price and availability of gasoline.

i am by no means a one issue voter. in fact, i do not take a party affiliation. ive voted for dems, ive voted for repubs. hell, i voted libertarian once. i vote for whoever i think is the best candidate, plain and simple. i think party bias is the main thing ruining this country, and i really dont want to be a part of it. obviously, the environment is something i feel strongly about, and i am well aware some decisions can have economic negative impacts. i try to weigh each issue individually, rather than clumping them all into one big lump.

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:funny i dont remember saying or arguing for any of those things. i must have missed where i posted all of that. my only question was why is it such a burden for us to care for the only place we call home.

And what does "care for" look like, exactly?

Quote: where does politics even enter into that statement?

What else do you think politics is about? How much simpler do you want it?

Quote:and wow, you used the phrase "shut up" to conclude your argument. so much for intelligent debate. i could go talk to some local 5th graders if i wanted to get down to that level.

You already write at that level. You use such generic phrases (like "care for") with no definition of that action, and certainly no analysis of what consequences such actions might bring...
Such superiority yet with nothing to back it up. That's a recipe for disaster. Lots of talk w/ no specifics, no metrics, no contingency plans. You're precisely the kind of person who is ruining the environment.

well i guess if you keep replying to my questions with more questions, youll never actually have to give a real answer.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:id imagine we wont do anything about all this until new york and san fran are around 10 feet underwater. and i dont care if you think its a man made problem or not (although if you think we can just rape the earth and do whatever the f we want and not have to suffer the consequences, you need to get your head checked), the question is how to solve the problem. but that would require admitting there is a problem.

Yes, and that requires valid, well-performed science, not the fear-mongering that makes the nightly news, and apparently gives you a feeling of superiority.

i just cant wrap my brain around how people can take such a trivial stance to the only place we know as home. we get one chance. when its screwed up, its done forever. even if global warming was non existient and the environemnt was in perfect shape, why would you still go out there and desecrate it? for once, just forget about politics and money and all the other crap that just dosent matter and just think about the real issue at hand and stop being so selfish.

Mr. Huskie, all we want is for both sides of the debate to be presented without prejudice. When you say to 'admit " to the problem, that presupposes that that part of the debate is over, when in fact it has not yet happened. A lot of people here take certain positions based on faith - white priviledge, Biblical inerrancy, global warming - and proceed from the position that they know the facts, so let's just go on to step 2. In the case of global warming, this seems to be your position. I think there is a lot of evidence for other views, but opposing views are shouted down, demeaned and discredited. It is like telling a nation of Jerry Falwells that other views may have validity. Some people interpret the bad hurricanes last year as a sign of global warming, some say it is a sign of God's wrath. People holding either of those positions dismiss other other interpretations and wonder why we aren't doing something about it - either reducing energy usage, etc, or stopping our sinful ways. Once again, you appear to be in the first group.

Some Americans are single-issue voters, whether the issue be environtalism, race, taxes, foreign policy, war, or just a family legacy of supporting a particular party. If you are one of these, and your overriding single issue is the environment, fine, that is your right as an American, but if so, i think it should be noted that a lot of environmental issues have negative economic impacts which by definition you must accept. For example, restrictions on oil exploration and development in Alaska and offshore may help the envoronment, but they also affect the price and availability of gasoline.

i am by no means a one issue voter. in fact, i do not take a party affiliation. ive voted for dems, ive voted for repubs. hell, i voted libertarian once. i vote for whoever i think is the best candidate, plain and simple. i think party bias is the main thing ruining this country, and i really dont want to be a part of it. obviously, the environment is something i feel strongly about, and i am well aware some decisions can have economic negative impacts. i try to weigh each issue individually, rather than clumping them all into one big lump.

Thanks for your response to the second part of my post. What about the first part? Are you convinced that the debate is over, GW is proven, and we should ignore those who disagree, so that we can get on to solving the problem?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:id imagine we wont do anything about all this until new york and san fran are around 10 feet underwater. and i dont care if you think its a man made problem or not (although if you think we can just rape the earth and do whatever the f we want and not have to suffer the consequences, you need to get your head checked), the question is how to solve the problem. but that would require admitting there is a problem.

Yes, and that requires valid, well-performed science, not the fear-mongering that makes the nightly news, and apparently gives you a feeling of superiority.

i just cant wrap my brain around how people can take such a trivial stance to the only place we know as home. we get one chance. when its screwed up, its done forever. even if global warming was non existient and the environemnt was in perfect shape, why would you still go out there and desecrate it? for once, just forget about politics and money and all the other crap that just dosent matter and just think about the real issue at hand and stop being so selfish.

Mr. Huskie, all we want is for both sides of the debate to be presented without prejudice. When you say to 'admit " to the problem, that presupposes that that part of the debate is over, when in fact it has not yet happened. A lot of people here take certain positions based on faith - white priviledge, Biblical inerrancy, global warming - and proceed from the position that they know the facts, so let's just go on to step 2. In the case of global warming, this seems to be your position. I think there is a lot of evidence for other views, but opposing views are shouted down, demeaned and discredited. It is like telling a nation of Jerry Falwells that other views may have validity. Some people interpret the bad hurricanes last year as a sign of global warming, some say it is a sign of God's wrath. People holding either of those positions dismiss other other interpretations and wonder why we aren't doing something about it - either reducing energy usage, etc, or stopping our sinful ways. Once again, you appear to be in the first group.

Some Americans are single-issue voters, whether the issue be environtalism, race, taxes, foreign policy, war, or just a family legacy of supporting a particular party. If you are one of these, and your overriding single issue is the environment, fine, that is your right as an American, but if so, i think it should be noted that a lot of environmental issues have negative economic impacts which by definition you must accept. For example, restrictions on oil exploration and development in Alaska and offshore may help the envoronment, but they also affect the price and availability of gasoline.

i am by no means a one issue voter. in fact, i do not take a party affiliation. ive voted for dems, ive voted for repubs. hell, i voted libertarian once. i vote for whoever i think is the best candidate, plain and simple. i think party bias is the main thing ruining this country, and i really dont want to be a part of it. obviously, the environment is something i feel strongly about, and i am well aware some decisions can have economic negative impacts. i try to weigh each issue individually, rather than clumping them all into one big lump.

Thanks for your response to the second part of my post. What about the first part? Are you convinced that the debate is over, GW is proven, and we should ignore those who disagree, so that we can get on to solving the problem?

im not sure i entirely understand your question. obviously, in my mind i feel global warming is having an effect on our planet. to what degree, i am not sure. do i think the hurricanes were a rsult of the warming climate? i dont know, but its probably something we should pay attention to. in which case, i think debate is a good thing. and im not even going to touch the radical religious views on the matter.

To put it more plainly, do you think the case has been made conclusively that global warming exists and is the the result of human actions, thus leading to the conclusion that it is time to quit debating it and start working on solutions to a known and acknowledged problem? Your phrase that this would "require admitting there is a problem" implies this viewpoint.

I think the case for global warming has not yet been made, partially because it has become politically incorrect to take any stance other than "it's real, it's our fault, so shut up and do something!"

OptimisticOwl Wrote:To put it more plainly, do you think the case has been made conclusively that global warming exists and is the the result of human actions, thus leading to the conclusion that it is time to quit debating it and start working on solutions to a known and acknowledged problem? Your phrase that this would "require admitting there is a problem" implies this viewpoint.

I think the case for global warming has not yet been made, partially because it has become politically incorrect to take any stance other than "it's real, it's our fault, so shut up and do something!"

yes, i do think global warming exists and is real. do i know what portion is caused by man/ what part is nature taking its course? well theres no way to be sure. but to think that the collective actions of 6 1/2 billion people is not going to have an effect on our climate i personally think is ignorant. thats just my stance though.

Well, i don't know yet if it is real, and if so, is the result of men's actions. There have been plenty of interglaciations (warming periods) in the history of the world, and they were not the fault of man or mammoth. I would like the scientific community to be able to study and debate this without people saying the dabate is over already.

Your statement that 6-1/2 billion people acting collectivelywe really don't act collectively - maybe you meant the clellective actions of 6-1/2 billion people)reminds of the ID statements - it just seems intuitively obvious, no need for proof.

And no need to call me ignorant, either. I attempted to talk with you in a calm and respecful way.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:There have been plenty of interglaciations (warming periods) in the history of the world, and they were not the fault of man or mammoth.

I don't know about that. Anybody seen a study on the effect of mammoth gas on interglaciation?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Well, i don't know yet if it is real, and if so, is the result of men's actions. There have been plenty of interglaciations (warming periods) in the history of the world, and they were not the fault of man or mammoth. I would like the scientific community to be able to study and debate this without people saying the dabate is over already.

Your statement that 6-1/2 billion people acting collectivelywe really don't act collectively - maybe you meant the clellective actions of 6-1/2 billion people)reminds of the ID statements - it just seems intuitively obvious, no need for proof.

And no need to call me ignorant, either. I attempted to talk with you in a calm and respecful way.

yes, warming and cooling periods have taken place. however, not in the short time span weve seen lately. temperature increases have been taking place in terms of decades and centuries. those units of time dont even exist on a geological timetable.

by pure chance, i just ran across this article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_o...mperatures

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Well, i don't know yet if it is real, and if so, is the result of men's actions. There have been plenty of interglaciations (warming periods) in the history of the world, and they were not the fault of man or mammoth. I would like the scientific community to be able to study and debate this without people saying the dabate is over already.

Your statement that 6-1/2 billion people acting collectivelywe really don't act collectively - maybe you meant the clellective actions of 6-1/2 billion people)reminds of the ID statements - it just seems intuitively obvious, no need for proof.

And no need to call me ignorant, either. I attempted to talk with you in a calm and respecful way.

What I don't get is whether you agree or disagree about GW, isn't it in the best interest to keep the air, water and ground pollution to a minimum?

This goes along with the, "well volcanoes put out more than we do." Great, that is true. But you only make it worse when you add on top of it. If it causes GW, every little bit makes a difference. If it doesn't, it helps us breathe easier. It is a positive either way.