Poll: Is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) taking place?
Yes - its getting toasty...
No - refill my hummer...
I sit on the iceberg on this one...
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AGW - Is it for real?
#1
Never before has a subject had such a consensus of scientific opinion that anthropogenic global warming currently enjoys, the science surrounding CFC’s and the ‘hole in the ozone layer’ was debated more than AGW yet the issue seems still to be hotly contested.

Is the debate between two sides in possession of ‘hard facts’, each concluding the opposite? Is it over the correct method of combating rising CO2 levels or whether the economics add up?

As the world faces another tumultuous summer of extreme weather conditions, is it time to start asking whether or not we are responsible for this?

[Image: What-is-global-warming-img.jpg]
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” - William Buckley
Reply
#2
Well, first, your poll choices display a level of ignorance on the subject.

You are not defining "AGW". To some, it means anything that humanity does that might cause GW. To others, it is very specifically referencing anthropogenic CO2 emissions and their supposedly catastrophic effect which causes GW.

The first really should be ACC (Climate Change) since it is indeed feasable that some of our actions may have some effect on climate either one way or the other. What effects, if any, we may have is very complex, as is Earth's climate system.

Regarding the second, AGW/CO2, using the phrase "having a consensus" is a very misleading. I belive it was Einstein that said something along the lines that even if everyone in the world believed in his Theory of Relativity, it would only take one person to prove that he is wrong, or words to that effect.

In other words, we aren't talking about democracy, or majority rules, we are talking about science. In science, it isn't a majority or "consensus" that makes things right, it is the data and the correct interpretation of the data. If AGW by CO2 was really happening, the people supporting it wouldn't have to alter, falsify, or manipulate the data to show it. However, whenever one takes the time to review the information, it becomes more and more evident that they are.

We are currently in what appears to be a cooling period. This doesn't mean that on this big, mostly blue, ball we call Earth, we won't have some areas that experience warm weather. Just because it is hot somewhere doesn't mean that it is our (man's) fault.

Oh, pretty picture though.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#3
mcabromb Wrote:Never before has a subject had such a consensus of scientific opinion that anthropogenic global warming currently enjoys, the science surrounding CFC’s and the ‘hole in the ozone layer’ was debated more than AGW yet the issue seems still to be hotly contested.

Really? Then where did all the naysayers come from. Concensus? I think not.

Or, 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares. You can also gain more information from The Friends of Science on this 'so called' concensus.

Remember The 'Old' Consensus? And guess who was the biggest booster? If you say Dr James Hanson, YOU WIN!! And that time it was Global Cooling, and the coming ice age. Go figure.

Global Warming Consensus Does Not Exist Among Scientists

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Consensus Can Be Bad for Climate Science

Remember, science is NEVER about Concensus! It is about FACTS. And the facts are that the earth goes through climate change all the time, and man is only a very minor player here.
--------------------------------------

"Mc" I could go on and on about this subject, and I am constantly keeping an archive of AGW skeptical evidence on the subject here, in case you did not see it. It is VERY Extensive and detailed. I too used to believe this "blame humans" first, and particularly Americans. As an anthropologist, I am well aware of what used to be the biggest hoax in history, that of Piltdown Man. I know a Scam when I see one, and this is much bigger than Piltdown.

It involves three principle groups, and they are working together, perhaps not in concert, but still together, none the less. It involves politicians, who are after power; the Media, which is after exposure and viewership; and Scientists, who wish to suck on the tit of government grant money. If you choose not to believe this, then I cannot help you.

If you are REALLY interested in this subject, of which some members here are quite well versed, I suggest you start by reading The Deniers Series, and see what some of the ""disgusting"" Deniers have to say about this.

Meanwhile, the sun continues to show signs of no sunspot activity. Opps, for the first time in days, there is actually a sunspot on the sun. Horrors! As I have stated before, in other places, it is the sun's activity that actually regulates the climate on earth. And we are currently in a tranquility period, of lowered sunspot activity, which will only get less active, and it means a cooling effect. These things usually take 4-7 years to be felt, and the sun has been pretty tranquil since 2005. We are about to start the slide down in temperature. Get ready for Trouble in the future, because a warmer planet is a better planet for humans. And believe me, we have been warmer, in this Holocene period, than we are today.
------------------------------

So is a warmer plante better? Let me count the ways.

In Praise of CO2

Climate change will boost farm output

GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals, by Thomas Gale Moore:Senior Fellow Hoover Institution

Hotter weather, fewer deaths: Man-made global warming will take thousands of lives. It will save many more, by Bjorn Lomborg

Researchers: Droughts Becoming Less Common:A primary tenet of global warming alarmism is invalidated

Global Warming, The Great Lifesaver, Bjorn Lomborg
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#4
And check this out! Finally, scientists are beginning to worry,....a little, about the lack of sunspots. This is just the beginning of a long story.

Quote:Sun Goes Longer Than Normal Without Producing Sunspots

ScienceDaily (Jun. 9, 2008) — The sun has been laying low for the past couple of years, producing no sunspots and giving a break to satellites.

That's good news for people who scramble when space weather interferes with their technology, but it became a point of discussion for the scientists who attended an international solar conference at Montana State University. Approximately 100 scientists from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America gathered June 1-6 to talk about "Solar Variability, Earth's Climate and the Space Environment."

The scientists said periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, but this period has gone on longer than usual.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#5
I'd just like to point out that I drive a 2008 Honda Civic and if the people so concerned about AGW would stop driving farking SUVs that get 4 gallons to the mile (and sticking greenpeace stickers on them) maybe I'd believe that there was really something to worry about. Of course, if they drove cars like mine, there would be nothing to fret about anyway.

The concensus, at least here in the most Progressive, environmentally "aware" area in the entire country, is "Let's go buy an SUV." You can pass long lines of them. 5.. 10... even 20 SUVs in a row with nary a normal car in the bunch.

That's changing, but only because of the price of gas.

Even the panic-mongers know AGCC is a scam.
Reply
#6
Pixiest Wrote:if the people so concerned about AGW would stop driving farking SUVs that get 4 gallons to the mile (and sticking greenpeace stickers on them) maybe I'd believe that there was really something to worry about.

I used to laugh at the people holding "save the redwoods" fund raisers on their redwood decks.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#7
scpg02 Wrote:I used to laugh at the people holding "save the redwoods" fund raisers on their redwood decks.

You mean that isn't really 'saving' redwood? Shock
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#8
JohnWho Wrote:We are currently in what appears to be a cooling period. This doesn't mean that on this big, mostly blue, ball we call Earth, we won't have some areas that experience warm weather. Just because it is hot somewhere doesn't mean that it is our (man's) fault.

Oh, pretty picture though.

Thanks!

Here is another. It illustrates that the 'cooling period' is set to end pretty abruptly due to rising CO2 levels - if you do not refute the idea that the atmospheric gases and global temperature are linked.
[Image: gtc2007.gif]

You are right about the direct phrasing of the poll, although it was meant in jest more than anything else. The key is that we are inevitably going to have an impact the climate system with the amount of toxics/CO2/CFC's et al that are being released - the main question is what this impact will be and for many that is still an up-in-the-air answer (excuse the pun).

John L Wrote:Meanwhile, the sun continues to show signs of no sunspot activity. Opps, for the first time in days, there is actually a sunspot on the sun. Horrors! As I have stated before, in other places, it is the sun's activity that actually regulates the climate on earth. And we are currently in a tranquility period, of lowered sunspot activity, which will only get less active, and it means a cooling effect. These things usually take 4-7 years to be felt, and the sun has been pretty tranquil since 2005. We are about to start the slide down in temperature. Get ready for Trouble in the future, because a warmer planet is a better planet for humans. And believe me, we have been warmer, in this Holocene period, than we are today.

If you believe the theory that the sun alone determines the temperature on the planet and that gases and atmospheric affects do not have a role to play. Clearly the do, you can see this by observing the summer-haze or a 'harvest moon'. Personally I think that much of this thinking comes from a discredited book written by a man who believed that dinosaurs could be created from ancient DNA injected into frogs, that and a now discredited documentary...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/...47927.html

The articles you linked come from another source that does not indicate itself to be a bastion of scientific reason and falsifiable evidence. Rather, it is one corporate funded non-profit trying to rationalise their claims in the face to NASA, USEPA, USDOJ, IPCC, DEFRA and the findings of the Stern report.
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” - William Buckley
Reply
#9
mcabromb Wrote:The articles you linked come from another source that does not indicate itself to be a bastion of scientific reason and falsifiable evidence. Rather, it is one corporate funded non-profit trying to rationalise their claims in the face to NASA, USEPA, USDOJ, IPCC, DEFRA and the findings of the Stern report.

Pardon me for being so bold, but What A Crock of HorseShit! You are a True Koolaid drinker, I can tell, and nothing I show you will change your mind Mc. Sorry to hear all that, but your chart is outdated, and you accuse me of using less than professional links?

I'm out of here, as this is a complete waste of time and energy, because you are really not interested, and not even "neutral" as T_S tells us. Enjoy the cooler weather, starting next year as that "Quiet Sun" really states kicking in.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#10
mcabromb Wrote:Here is another. It illustrates that the 'cooling period' is set to end pretty abruptly due to rising CO2 levels - if you do not refute the idea that the atmospheric gases and global temperature are linked.

Uh, a projection with data collected only through 1999 isn't very useful anymore, especially one using IPCC estimates.

Last I checked, it is 2008.

The last 9 years of data does not match up at all with that graphic.

Oh, it is very colorful, though.

I'm sure it would impress Pre-kindergarteners since at that level color is more important than substance.

:lol:
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#11
mcabromb Wrote:If you believe the theory that the sun alone determines the temperature on the planet and that gases and atmospheric affects do not have a role to play.

Just for my enlightenment, could you provide a link or two to anyone who beleives what you are saying.

I believe that the sun is the primary driver of Earth's climate (primary being anywhere from 51% up, mostly "and up" and probably no less than 70%) and that "gases and atmospheric affects", and maybe inter-planetary (including lunar) gravitational forces, possibly cosmic radiation, and other items play a much smaller, but discernable part in determining Earth's climate.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#12
The poll says "no" 4-1. I guess we have a consensus. :lol:
If y'all like colorful charts how about this one (linked because it's large).
It seems to show a balanced cycle.
Different eyes see different things. Different hearts beat on different strings.
But there are times for you and me when all such things agree.
-Geddy Lee, Rush.
Reply
#13
John L Wrote:Pardon me for being so bold, but What A Crock of HorseShit! You are a True Koolaid drinker, I can tell, and nothing I show you will change your mind Mc. Sorry to hear all that, but your chart is outdated, and you accuse me of using less than professional links?

I'm out of here, as this is a complete waste of time and energy, because you are really not interested, and not even "neutral" as T_S tells us. Enjoy the cooler weather, starting next year as that "Quiet Sun" really states kicking in.

Likewise mate! You are so deep among the trees you have forgotten you are even in a forest Wink1

I will happily update the chart for 2007-2008, proof is not exactly hard to find. I am still awaiting evidence to the contrary... but am not holding my breath.
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” - William Buckley
Reply
#14
Armadillo Wrote:The poll says "no" 4-1. I guess we have a consensus. :lol:
If y'all like colorful charts how about this one (linked because it's large).
It seems to show a balanced cycle.

Yep, more conclusive evidence from the same source:

[Image: nhshgl.gif]
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” - William Buckley
Reply
#15
JohnWho Wrote:Just for my enlightenment, could you provide a link or two to anyone who beleives what you are saying.

I believe that the sun is the primary driver of Earth's climate (primary being anywhere from 51% up, mostly "and up" and probably no less than 70%) and that "gases and atmospheric affects", and maybe inter-planetary (including lunar) gravitational forces, possibly cosmic radiation, and other items play a much smaller, but discernable part in determining Earth's climate.

The theory is the greenhouse effect. If the sun were the temperature driver at the percentage you were discussing, we would be would be around 60ºF colder.

[Image: 750px-Greenhouse_Effect.svg.png]

This graph is a simplified, schematic representation of the flows of energy between space, the atmosphere, and the Earth's surface, and shows how these flows combine to trap heat near the surface and create the greenhouse effect. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2):

Source: Kiehl, J.T., and Trenberth, K. Earth's annual mean global energy budget, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2), 197–208.
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” - William Buckley
Reply
#16
JohnWho Wrote:I'm sure it would impress Pre-kindergarteners since at that level color is more important than substance.

:lol:

:lol: Sure. I bet they get climate science better than some on here.

For any tuning in, the EPA provides a pretty good website for them explaining everything real simple:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” - William Buckley
Reply
#17
"Mc" I will only say this in parting, that this thread is in the wrong place. It should be either in Science, or politics sections. But I will leave it here for awhile.

It is obvious that you do not read much in the Science Section, because we are very extensive in covering the global warming debate there. And if you followed it, you would have obtained more than the usual information about the issue. Further, there are some of us, who are members of the Climate Skeptics Forum, where most of the accredited scientists, who also happen to be skeptics, participate, and link to the latest scientific studies on global warming. We have more access to this information that you would think possible.

For you to be a person, who believes that humans are guilty of changing the planet, For The Worse, you have to believe that what little bit of input we contribute is way out of porportion to the final count. You also have to believe that the only answer is for the State to solve your problems for you. And you have to believe that the State would NEVER be dishonest, corrupt, or capable of trying to accumulate more power over it's citizens, by perpetuating a lie. In other words, you would have to be a consumate Statist, and willing to assume, as FACT, Anything the State tells you, because they are all benevolent and only care for your well-being, first and foremost. If you believe all this, then you have no further need to be skeptical of Anything the State tells you, right?

I started out being a believer in AGW, but weighed the facts skeptically, and have concluded that there is a concerted effort to create a problem that is not really there. Most groups pushing this have their own agenda for doing so, but they are working in concert to promote them, and it is your Liberties, your pocketbook, your livilihood, your well-being, your faith that is at stake here, not the planet.

And I say that because a warmer planet is a better planet. Obviously you did not follow the discussion on another thread, where I pointed everyone to the program, Little Ice Age: Big Chill. It is a cooling planet that we should fear, not a warming one. Remember, we came from Africa, where the weather has always been warm: not from the arctic. You did not even bother reading the links I provided, I can tell, because they make too much common sense. All you could state was that they did not suppore the UN, or David Hanson at NASA(and believe me, it is his little cliche there who are the true believers, not NASA in general).

I have spent countless hours accumulating information, from the skeptic's perspective, and to call it all lacking because it does not follow the IPCC, or some other government entity, is insulting, because you expect us never question what bureaucrats tell us. As for me, I think bureaucrats are amongst the lowest lifeforms on the planet, because they are self-perpetuating, tend to be corrupt, love power, and think the rest of the world revolves around them.

I'll move this to Science tomorrow, after you have read this.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#18
mcabromb Wrote:Yep, more conclusive evidence from the same source:

[Image: nhshgl.gif]

Ah, I can clearly see by this graphic that the upward warming trend has stopped and the last year or so shows a slight downturn globally.

Exactly what I, and others showing AGW/CO2 isn't happening, have been saying.

Otherwise, this isn't as pretty a graphic as the others. Sorry.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#19
mcabromb Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:Just for my enlightenment, could you provide a link or two to anyone who beleives what you are saying.

I believe that the sun is the primary driver of Earth's climate (primary being anywhere from 51% up, mostly "and up" and probably no less than 70%) and that "gases and atmospheric affects", and maybe inter-planetary (including lunar) gravitational forces, possibly cosmic radiation, and other items play a much smaller, but discernable part in determining Earth's climate.

The theory is the greenhouse effect. If the sun were the temperature driver at the percentage you were discussing, we would be would be around 60ºF colder.

.

I'm sorry, you said
Quote:If you believe the theory that the sun alone determines the temperature on the planet and that gases and atmospheric affects do not have a role to play.

and I'm asking for you to show us where anyone believes that.

Nice attempt to shift that question to something else.

I accept the Greenhouse Gas concept and am aware that it, too, is not settled science. The exact amount of effect it has on climate is still being debated. The primary GHG is water vapor, not the CO2 exhaled by Al Gore and his followers. (Oops, I just exhaled some, too.) Clearly it is not dominant or else warming would not have abated globally.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#20
Methane is also a concern in AGW,less publicized,but it's as large as CO2 in the mantra. They don't use it in their propganada as much because at the end of the day the solution is less animals& humans on the planet and that's not a nice little debate for Ms. "Where's the new shopping mall".

So,animals and humans have been cutting fa.rts since day 1. More animals and humans everyday,wonder why this methane production didn't cause scorched earth after a few thousand years? Wonder why there wasn't a big fireball accidentally lit that destroyed lots already? Any of the wise people know the answer?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)