Global Warming Debate

[k1vsk]

Must admit to not have read the prior 30+ pages but I can infer from some recent comments that there are still objective and informed people who disbelieve that we are contributing to climate change?

[PBzeer]

I don't think it's so much they doubt man's effect, as it is the degree of it. The alarmists, and others with a vested interest (such as grant money) are saying, in essence, that man is the sole contributor, to an unnatural amount of climate change. Others see it as but one component, and a small one, in the natural cycle of climate change.

I don't think that any thoughtful person doubts that climate changes. It is a dynamic, not static, force, after all.

[camaraderie]

KV1....You mean besides me??
Here's 19000 people with at least a BS,MS or PHD degree in a scientific field who question the "consensus" and urged NOT to support the Kyoto Treaty or anything like it in the strongest terms saying in their petition:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. "

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm


The petition proves nothing except that I am not alone in my beliefs and many with extremely strong scientific backgrounds feel the same. Same thing can be said for "the other side". Point is...it ain't settled science!

[merttan]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. "

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm


The petition proves nothing except that I am not alone in my beliefs and many with extremely strong scientific backgrounds feel the same. Same thing can be said for "the other side". Point is...it ain't settled science!

I do not accept OISM as a credible source for this debate... As I posted their background...

I'll stand my ground for human contribution to the global warming, we may not be the sole reason, however, we are contributing to the climate change as our interaction with nature is a factor that cannot be overlooked.

Did anyone even read the links I posted?

Can we accept the facts about;
1-We change land mass by reducing forests, increasing man made structures those affect heat radiation and absorbtion.
2-The ice cover on arctic and antarctic are reduced by 20% since 1950, which dumps fresh water into the oceans that will affect the oceanic belts those interact with our climate.
3-CO2 emission of human related sources are increased in last century in a rate that caused atmospheric gas ratios to change. The basic examples are the smog over cities, people wearing masks in certain cities to avoid lung diseases due to pollution, etc.
4-The scientific research is not only working with real-time climate changes but climate plots that calculates the outcomes due to different atmospheric CO2 ratio, fresh water in oceans, land mass changes, oceonic acidity, etc. to see the probable results.

[merttan]

Some real scientific research can be found at:

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=14087

"Earth’s natural climate cycles can and have confused the picture of recent anthropogenic warming, allowing those opposed to any kind of carbon emission reduction to claim the situation is normal and not of our doing. But weight of scientific evidence is otherwise."

"Concentrations of greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane are higher now than any time in the past 600,000 years, and are projected to increase even more. Initially, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were projected to double over the next 100 years."

Please read the rest of the article for yourselves...

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=7486

"Earth’s land and oceans have been soaking up the excess carbon dioxide that humans have pumped into the atmosphere through smokestacks and tailpipes. But there are limits."

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=7115

"Large and climatically sensitive regions of the North Atlantic Ocean have become less salty since the late 1960s, a trend that could alter global ocean circulation and spur climate changes by the 21st century."

http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2006_en.html
"Latest research findings show that failure to check mankind’s emissions of carbon dioxide will have severe consequences for the world’s oceans."


http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/

You've got some reading to do today
Take care

[k1vsk]

Cam
I read your attachment but can't seem to find where it describes the membership of this group.
All I can add to this is my experience having worked for the EPA for 32 years before retiring. During that span of time, the policy and views of the scientists never changed despite the rhetoric of the various administration's views which consistently followed political party lines.
The consistent view throughout that period was and still is that so-called greenhouse gases are changing the global ambient temperature but no one knows definitively whether or not that change will be catastrophic which begs the question why not plan for the worst and hope for the best?

[Giulietta]

Cam....you fake man...

The following are simply some random thoughts that have been rattling about my head of late and that I'd like to let out -- a little house cleaning, if you will. As this letter will make clear, it is not uncommon for Mr. Camaraderie to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole footling affair as some great benefit to humanity. It's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions. Call me old-fashioned, but Camaraderie plans to instill a general ennui. He has instructed his hatchet men not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Camaraderie knows he has something to hide.

Is it just me, or do other people also think that Camaraderie has never been accused of objectivity? I ask, because Camaraderie believes that children should belong to the state. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. You are, I'm sure, well aware that we should use our words to create understanding and progress, not hatred and division. But did you know that he should stop and savor life, not numb the public to the elitism and injustice in mainstream politics?

Please remember that Camaraderie's attempts to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate state and private activity are much worse than mere solipsism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. Camaraderie wants us to believe that profits come before people. How stupid does he think we are? It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that Camaraderie habitually reads negative meanings into innocuous remarks. But did you know that it is often said that yellow-bellied, obtrusive quiddlers often prove their point by relying on untenable conjecture and unverifiable hearsay? He doesn't want you to know that because I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like him evade responsibility. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. Documents written by Camaraderie's sympathizers typically include the line, "Camaraderie's lynch mob is looking out for our best interests", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that Camaraderie's squibs are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, you, of course, now need some hard evidence that Camaraderie is certainly failing in his legal and moral responsibility not to relabel millions of people as "inerudite". Well, how about this for evidence: Camaraderie commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Camaraderie to reduce us to acute penury. Although Camaraderie is ever learning, he is never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The truth, in this context, is that I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset Camaraderie. Here's what I have to say to them: Camaraderie has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who wants to condemn his criminal ineptitude. Camaraderie's revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, he has been offering catty protestors a lot of money to treat people like what I call quasi-unimaginative idiots. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that Camaraderie is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his precepts.

Even Camaraderie's supporters couldn't deal with the full impact of Camaraderie's ebullitions. That's why they created "Camaraderie-ism," which is just a sappy excuse to glamorize drug usage. Did it ever occur to him that he is against everything and for nothing? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that in a recent essay, he stated that he can override nature. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but I can't possibly believe his claim that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because when Camaraderie says that courtesy and manners don't count for anything, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound.

If you think that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that Camaraderie should be even slightly inconvenienced, then think again. When I look back I think, "There will be public outrage if Camaraderie tries to place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives." He has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever he thinks that means) to prove that the rules don't apply to him. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that I'm at loggerheads with Camaraderie on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of commercialism. I take the opposite position, that if I recall correctly, I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Camaraderie's threats reflect an era in which cultures or attitudes different from one's own were dealt with through violence and mistrust." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that someone has to be willing to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that Camaraderie's latest campaigns have arisen like a phoenix out of the ashes and failures of their hate-filled forebears. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that the cure for evil is more evil. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the illiberal nature and content of Camaraderie's policies: "Attention, cohorts! Your orders are to empty the meaning of such concepts as 'self,' 'justice,' 'freedom,' and other profundities, and to do so at any cost." Let me close where I began: I am declaring open season on sullen mendicants like Mr. Camaraderie who silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming.

[Giulietta]

I've tried to keep quiet, but I just can't hold it in any longer. I have to tell everyone that as soon Mr. Camaraderie takes us beyond the point of no return, the next thing we'll hear him say is, "Oops, made a mistake". Let us note first of all that a person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Camaraderie has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how it's possible that Camaraderie doesn't realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of imperialism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we admonish him not seven times, but seventy times seven.

If anything, it is incumbent upon all of us to confront Camaraderie's orations head-on. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to. Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to view the realms of statism and wowserism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua? If I may be permitted to make an observation, Camaraderie doesn't want us to know about his plans to prevent me from getting my work done. Otherwise, we might do something about that. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that most oleaginous degenerates lost interest in their own future long before they joined Mr. Camaraderie's terrorist organization.

[xort]

I read some of those woods hole links. One of them was a 2003 dissertation on the conveyor belt theory. That theory has since been disproven. Other WH links were only hypothesizing, not discussing the facts.
Perhaps you can find a WH discussion that would show the graph that cam/oism used and how it doesn't show what it shows.

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by k1vsk

Cam
I read your attachment but can't seem to find where it describes the membership of this group.

The signers of the petition...all 19000 of them... are listed under the alphabetical links on the left side of the page. They are not members of a group...they are simply signers of the petition text that appears on the page and believe in the statement. Hope that is clear...there is nothing scientific about the petition except that all of the signers are educated in science...some in quite prominent positions within the "climate science" world....I was simply responding to your request to know if there were fair minded people who disagreed with the notion of man made global warming.


All I can add to this is my experience having worked for the EPA for 32 years before retiring. During that span of time, the policy and views of the scientists never changed despite the rhetoric of the various administration's views which consistently followed political party lines.
The consistent view throughout that period was and still is that so-called greenhouse gases are changing the global ambient temperature but no one knows definitively whether or not that change will be catastrophic

I have no doubt that the vast majority of EPA scientists support the notion of man-made global warming OR that the majority of climate related scientists do. I personally believe their is much EPA / scientific bias FOR global warming caused by man since:
1. If it is true...there will be impetus for getting polluting industries and internal combustion engines shut down...so carbon dioxide which is not a pollutant can help them achieve their "getting rid of pollutants" goal.
2. It helps fund research and jobs and grants and enhances the push for alternative energy.
3. The view is..."what could it hurt if we invested in cleaning things up?"
4. Those who choose to work for the EPA already have a particular view of the world and how man is mucking it up and wish to be a force for change.
So...I don't think the scientists there scrog up their data intentionally but I do think they tend to latch on to stuff which supports their world view and give less credence to digging into other possibilities. Like we all do.

Of course, my OPINION is worth nothing. Nor is the opinion of the majority. What really counts is the science and the facts...and increasingly the data around the science is getting better and showing major errors and gaps in what we know about 1. Man-made warming 2. Long term NATURAL warming (and cooling)....and more real scientists and the general public are becoming aware of these problems with the data and the projections. Some of that data has been posted on this thread and I will post additional stuff for those interested in the days ahead.

which begs the question why not plan for the worst and hope for the best?
This question is asked a lot. My answer is that if the goal is to keep temperatures from rising in accordance with the U.N./IPCC projections...then there will be a wealth transfer of TRILLIONS of dollars from people like you and me and our governments over the next few decades and significant disruption to our way of life...and I am not talking about simple stuff like flourescent light bulbs...think 1850's lifestyle.
That money will be absolutely wasted if GW proves to be:
Minor OR not man-made OR completely natural OR not affected by anything we CAN do OR on balance GOOD or simply non-existant over the longer term.
In the face of UN-Settled science...I can think of lots of uses for trillions of dollars that can actually improve the planet and the lot of mankind. THAT is why ACTING on the assumption is bad.

BTW...I can and will supply stats on the costs and projected results of taking action but don't have time today to dig it out again.

Giu...I know you are trying to insert some levity here...but I take this thread seriously and would appreciate it if you don't muddy it up! It is long and daunting enough.
More to come....