Archive for Friday, August 17, 2007

Scientists overheated on climate

August 17, 2007

Advertisement

In every child's life there comes a time when childhood fantasies are shattered and he or she is forced to accept reality - there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy; parents don't always mean it when they promise to stay married until parted by death.

Grown-up scientists, theologians, historians, archaeologists and others who pursue facts and objective truths are rooted in reality and constantly adjusting their conclusions, theories and hypotheses when new information comes to light. Those who ignore facts and cling to outdated information, or outright falsehoods, can quickly embrace fanaticism.

So it is with "global warming," the secular religion of our day that even has a good number of adherents among people of faith. Having decided to focus less on the eternal and whether anyone dwells there, global warming fundamentalists are pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud.

There are at least two characteristics all fundamentalists share. One is the exclusion and sometimes suppression of any and all information that challenges or contradicts the belief one wishes to impose on all. The other is the use of the state in pursuit of their objectives, overriding the majority's will.

With global warming, some members of the scientific community - not all of whom are climatologists, who disagree among themselves - have circled the wagons, denying access and labeling illegitimate any scientist who disagrees with the "doctrines" of a recently warming planet. The big media have been complicit in this censorship or ridicule of alternative views, mostly refusing to interview anyone who does not push the global warming faith. CBS News this week broadcast a four-part series on "climate change." Newsweek magazine recently slammed global warming "deniers." That brought a counterattack in the Aug. 20 issue from Newsweek contributor Robert Samuelson, who termed the article "highly contrived" and "fundamentally misleading." In 1975, Newsweek was just as convinced - using "scientific evidence" - that a new Ice Age was upon us.

Many global warming fanatics have pointed to NASA as proof that their concerns about a warming planet are justified. They have repeatedly cited the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose director, James Hansen, has asserted that nine of the 10 warmest years in history have occurred since 1995, with 1998 the warmest. When NASA was confronted with evidence provided by Climate Audit, a blog run by Stephen McIntyre devoted to auditing the statistical methods and data used in historical reconstructions of past climate data, it reversed itself. Without the fanfare used to hype the global warming fanaticism it had earlier supported, NASA now says four of the top 10 years of high temperatures are from the 1930s. Several previously selected "warm" years - 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 - fell behind 1900.

GISS now says its previous claim that 1998 was the warmest year in American history is no longer valid. The warmest year was 1934.

Has any of this new information changed the minds of the global warming fundamentalists? Nope. Neither has much of it seen the light of day in the mainstream media, which continue to carry stories where seldom is heard an alternative word and the skies are polluted all day.

The New York Times ran a story in its Sunday Business section last week that said it would cost a lot of money to fight global warming. The implication being that this money should come from government (and taxpayers), along with more government regulations and control over our lives by the very people who seem to have difficulty winning wars and controlling spending.

The Earth has warmed and cooled over many centuries. One can get a sense of who is telling the truth about global warming by the company the concept keeps. Most of the disciples of global warming are liberal Democrats who never have enough of our money and believe there are never enough regulations concerning the way we lead our lives. That ought to be enough to give everyone pause, along with emerging evidence that the global warming jihadists may be more full of hot air than the climate they claim is about to burn us up.

Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services

Comments

Gary Sandell 7 years, 8 months ago

OK--So where are all of you Global Warming fanatics that would dispute Cal's words? Got any facts to convince me he is not right?

Tychoman 7 years, 8 months ago

He's not right, I don't see why we should be requested to provide evidence when the vast majority of the scientific community has been providing that evidence for 30+ years. No one's responding because it's just another contrived, idiotic column from the hack Cal Thomas.

outdoor55 7 years, 8 months ago

Okay, so even if you believe that global warming is a farce shouldn't we all take steps to decrease pollution and leave the planet a better place for future generations? Ahh screw it!!!! Lets be selfish and do what feels good now.

drake 7 years, 8 months ago

Don't worry gsandell, they will show up. Unfortunately they will not provide evidence. They will only attack the column and dismiss it b/c it is written by Cal Thomas.

drake 7 years, 8 months ago

Oops, see I was too late on the button.

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 8 months ago

outdoor55,

I concur, but I've recently realized that neocons and their sheeple don't care about their kids so it's hard to dispute them with that rationalization.

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 8 months ago

gsandell,

Since you requested some evidence that refutes neocon extraordinaire, Cal Thomas, here you go:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

For you, I would suggest clicking on the "Climate Change for Kids" link to help you understand a little better.

Gary Sandell 7 years, 8 months ago

I will say one thing that makes me think global warming is a fact-- I heard one pig say to another pig yesterday, "It's so hot---I'm Bacon!!!

thusspokezarathustra 7 years, 8 months ago

Where does Cal prove that changing the hottest year on record disproves the evidence that the earth's mean temperature is steadily increasing? When considering Geological time there is very little difference between 1934 & 1998.

stuckinthemiddle 7 years, 8 months ago

And when you Cal Thomas Humpers are done reading the science at the Pew site feel free to dispute it with all of your vast scientific knowledge...

Matt Toplikar 7 years, 8 months ago

Because the author of this editorial cited NASA as a source, I thought it would be a good idea to see what NASA's official position on the subject is. Here's a link and a small excerpt from NASA's website.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

"Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases..."

Because he also cited GISS as a source, I looked on their website as well. Here's a link (and excerpt from that link ) to an article by a top GISS scientist talking about both the constructive criticisms as well as the ones given by people with an agenda. In the link he gives good data and references to show the holes in many of the arguments given by Global Warming critics.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/index.html

"In my view, we are not doing as well as we could in the global warming debate. For one thing, we have failed to use the opportunity to help teach the public about how science research works. On the contrary, we often appear to the public to be advocates of fixed adversarial positions. Of course, we can try to blame this on the media and politicians, with their proclivities to focus on antagonistic extremes. But that doesn't really help. The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure out how something works. To do this well, a scientist learns to be open-minded, ignoring prejudices that might be imposed by religious, political or other tendencies (Galileo being a model of excellence). Indeed, science thrives on repeated challenge of any interpretation, and there is even special pleasure in trying to find something wrong with well-accepted theory... I have argued in a recent book review that some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint. But some of the topics focused on by the skeptics are recognized as legitimate research questions, and also it is fair to say that the injection of environmental, political and religious perspectives in midstream of the science research has occurred from both sides in the global warming debate."

stuckinthemiddle 7 years, 8 months ago

And, per usual with Thomas's rants he doesn't appear to have a grasp of the basic concepts that he is attacking...

Cait McKnelly 7 years, 8 months ago

There is one fact that makes me believe global warming is real. The poles are melting. And as they melt the degree and speed of melting is exponential and it goes faster and faster. This is real, objective, observable data. Dispute that.

preebo 7 years, 8 months ago

Whenever someone like Cal speaks out, everyone runs around actually claiming there is still debate about this topic. This is how the industry (energy conglomerates) and their mouthpieces raise the specter of conjecture and question. I'll admit that Global Warming does have somewhat of an alarmist tone, but does that mean that it is inaccurate? While many in the Climatology field prefer the term "Global Climate Change" it essentially conveys the same point.

Simply put, Cal is referring to weather and not climate. When discussing models from over a few decades like in his diatribe you are referring to weather modeling, but when you look at the larger picture as Climatologists do then you get a greater appreciation of the issue and its nuances.

Chris Golledge 7 years, 8 months ago

Anyone know links or references to back up Cal's claims?

I'm not being facetious; I'd like to see them because I'd like to believe we aren't leaving a hell hole for our kids to live in.

Cal's reference to the ice age hypothesis circa 1975 is an antiquated argument. Back then, a very small number of scientists published an article and the news media decided that it was a story that would sell copy. The last time I heard, about 95% of all scientist who know anything about climate science are convinced that man-made climate change is underway. The news media today has picked that up because it also sells copy.

Sure, the climate has changed before and it will continue to change. It's the rate of change that can be problematic. Problematic in the sense that, yes, there have been rapid climate changes in the history of the earth without man; there have also been mass extinctions without man. Just because these things have happened without man's influence does not mean that man is incapable of causing them.

Analogy: Suppose you had a jumble of extensions and multiplug adapters that looked like something out of "Christmas Vacation" and 19 out of 20 electricians told you that it might, at some point they couldn't exactly predict, cause your house to catch fire. One of them told you it was no problem. Who would you believe? I don't know about you, but I would start fixing it.

BTW, toplikar, thanks, you beat me to that.

Cal Thomas is like one of that newsgroup trolls just trying to fire arguments and draw attention to himself.

Mkh 7 years, 8 months ago

Why don't we stop arguing about Global Warming and start discussing the real issue at hand, Peak Oil and Natural Gas. I happen to believe in Gobal Warming, but it is really a back burner issue compared to the coming crisis of Peak Oil.

Peak Oil will Force us to radically change our lifestyles and society. We are going to have to drastically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and turn to alternative fuels to keep our society intact without ruining our economy. Peak Oil is happening Now, not generations from now. Either we take the steps to make the transition from cheap oil, or our oil-based society will collapse when it fully occurs.

p>www.peakoil.com www.lifeafteroilcrash.net www.peakoil.net www.hubbertpeak.com www.theoildrum.com

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 8 months ago

I'll leave the cherry picking to y'all. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html http://www.livescience.com/environment/060106_2005_heat.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn10800 Cal turns five barely disputed facts into blather - "The big media have been complicit in this censorship or ridicule of alternative views, mostly refusing to interview anyone who does not push the global warming faith."

thusspokezarathustra 7 years, 8 months ago

Of course you could just read the Samuelson article & realize that Cal twisted the meaning of the article to fit his own political agenda. He never states that global warming isn't happening he's simply arguing that the solutions are not feasible or simply won't solve the problem.

"The global-warming debate's great un-mentionable is this: we lack the technology to get from here to there."

"But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale-as NEWSWEEK did-in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society."

So it would seem his argument isn't whether global warming exists but whether the US can afford the solutions or if they will work at all.

TheYetiSpeaks 7 years, 8 months ago

posted by cg22165- "Cal's reference to the ice age hypothesis circa 1975 is an antiquated argument. Back then, a very small number of scientists published an article and the news media decided that it was a story that would sell copy."

Unlike "global warming", which is not a sensationalistic media prize at all. ugh.

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 8 months ago

And chicken little says the sky is falling oh well the world is going to h**l and there we are. Just funning people no answers from my end just so much bickering about everything on here anymore. I really need to get a life:|)

thusspokezarathustra 7 years, 8 months ago

"In every child's life there comes a time when childhood fantasies are shattered he or she is forced to accept reality "

This coming from a guy who believes the Bible is infallible because those writing it were guided by the invisible hand of God.

thusspokezarathustra 7 years, 8 months ago

"Liberals want to tax and regulate the monkey-lovin' crap out of us and the g/w hype will hopefully scare the living daylights out of Americans on a broad scale"

Much like the war on terror is manipulated to create and exploit defense contracts by Haliburton & their ilk.

kugrad 7 years, 8 months ago

This column is offensive. Lumping all those who feel scientific evidence supports the theory of climate change resulting from human behavior together into a group as though they were all extremists is bad enough, but the use of the term "jihadists" is just offensive. This is Thomas' general purpose as a member of the far-right wing echo-chamber: he loudly repeats what he has been told elsewhere (without fact-checking) and add a dose of name-calling to try to marginalize all that disagree with his party line.

Again, I call on the LJW to stop carrying this column because it is poorly written and does not contribute to any positive discussion or debate about the issues. Thomas is not an expert on anything. He has no real qualifications, but is a self-appointed pundit. If his column reflected any original thought, that would be another matter, but he gave up on that long ago. His column has become increasingly religious in the last year and, at times, borders on both racism and arguments of religious superiority.

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 8 months ago

Right_Thinker wrote: "Hey, has Cal been lifting ideas from my posts??!!"

Wow, R_T and Cal Thomas are on the same page...big shocker there.

It's amazing that liberals were able to orchestrate a conspiracy that's fooling almost everyone in the world just so they can get more government money and more regulations.

Dadgum liberals is tryin' to git my money.

Kodiac 7 years, 8 months ago

drake (Anonymous) says: Don't worry gsandell, they will show up. Unfortunately they will not provide evidence. They will only attack the column and dismiss it b/c it is written by Cal Thomas.

Uh yeah riiiiiight. Let's see here Cal refers to ""global warming fundamentalists" as jihadists", a "big" media as conspiricists, and global warning naysayers as money-grubbing "liberal democrats".

Yeah Cal sure is providing us with a lot of evidence and not attacking anyone here isn't he Drake.

Just follow the sheep dude, just follow the sheep....

Gary Sandell 7 years, 8 months ago

Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says: For you, I would suggest clicking on the "Climate Change for Kids" link to help you understand a little better.


Thanks "RKR" After I saw this post from you, I ask my kids if they wanted a climate change and they decided they wanted to move to the Bahamas. Much better climate.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 8 months ago

global warming = global malarky....good article.

imastinker 7 years, 8 months ago

I'd like to point out that Cal Thomas is just as qualified to write this article as Al Gore was to make that movie that started all this.

MyName 7 years, 8 months ago

More calls for censorship from the righteous freedom of speech upholders on the far-left. Thanks.

No one is calling for censorship, but printing the idiotic ramblings of a blowhard like Cal in an actual newspaper gives his words a higher degree of legitimacy than they deserve. A pet monkey could come up with a better argument for Conservative Ideology than this joker.

But since I feel like humoring you, the crux of Cal Thomas' "argument" seems to be:

1) Scientists who come to the conclusion that the global temperature has been been rising in the past 30 years are the equivalent of religious fantatics (nevermind the fact that these conclusions have come about from years of going out there and actually measuring the actual temperature and as opposed to writing columns that have no real data and yet claim to undo years of real work in a 1000 word bloward extravaganza).

2) Some guy has discovered that 1934, which was already one of the top 10 warmest years on record, should be moved to number 1 on the list, and the scientists (or as Cal would have us call them "close minded fanatics") who were in charge of the list looked at the data and agreed with the guy, therefore global warming is now complete bunk. (As a side note, this second point goes against everything Cal Thomas said earlier in the article as close mined fanatics would just run the guy out of town, but I'm sure that's only important if you're interested in make a cogent argument and not some nutter writing a propaganda piece).

3) Because global warming is now automatically bunk, anyone who believes we should do anything about the problem of global warming is a "global warming jihadist". Just like Galileo was a "helocentric religious extremist" for taking measurements of the movement of stars and planets and coming to the conclusion that the Earth orbits around the Sun, I suppose. Or maybe Newton and his "Radical Left-Wing Theory of Gravity". And no, I'm not going to point out the obviousness of the Pot ("Cal Thomas") calling the Kettle ("anyone who disagrees with whatever pedantic ranting this blowhard comes up with") an Extremist.

And after all this, you right wing nutters on this board ask why no one wants to respond to this man's claims? Is it maybe because your average 6th grader could poke holes in this toilet paper argument and most people of intelligence would rather not legitimize Thomas' political doublespeak with constructive criticism? Or could it be that we're all too busy wondering HTH anyone could respect themselves after writing such pandering political drivel? Or maybe we're all too busy conducting our global jihad on the American way of life, yeah, that's it!

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 8 months ago

Speaking of the Daily Show, they showed this clip the other day.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RgKpiwwZKVE

That's your hero, Right_Thinker...he's a hypocrite just like you!

outdoor55 7 years, 8 months ago

I will say it again... for some reason. Even if you think global warming is BS, are you saying screw the future generations, allow another coal fired power plant, ease pollution restrictions and generally screw anyone who thinks that driving an SUV is a bad idea? I don't understand people.

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 8 months ago

outdoor,

My personal theory is that the anti-global warming people take that stance b/c they want to justify their wasteful lifestyle...they don't want to believe that they're destroying the earth and you can never underestimate the power of denial.

There are also a lot of Christian fundies who believe Jesus is actually coming back to save everything so they don't worry about global warming, polution, etc...

You're not alone, though...I don't understand people either.

mick 7 years, 8 months ago

Global warming- "the secular religion of our day." Way to go Cal. Did you know that the Russian word for crap is cal?

kugrad 7 years, 8 months ago

right_non_thinker wrote:

I wrote: "Again, I call on the LJW to stop carrying this column because it is poorly written and does not contribute to any positive discussion or debate about the issues."

Right_non_thinker responded" "More calls for censorship from the righteous freedom of speech upholders on the far-left. Thanks."

First of all, I am not calling for censorship; I am saying this sub-par column does not meet the standards of decent journalism and should be dropped for the reasons I listed. Someone else can carry it, but is so lousy, I don't think the LJW should. Second, I am not a member of the far left. Third, I do not oppose the LJW carrying the column because I disagree with the content, but because it is regularly so poor. I disagree with plenty of editorial columns, but acknowledge that they are well written and contribute to thoughtful discussion. For example, sometimes David Broder and I disagree, but his column is well-written and thought provoking. Thomas' column is never thought provoking. Today's column is typical of the drivel he has produced the last couple of years. He did not used to be such a poor columnist, but the quality of his work has been terrible for long enough to justify dropping the column.

Please don't put words in my mouth Mr.Thinker.

kugrad 7 years, 8 months ago

"I'd like to point out that Cal Thomas is just as qualified to write this article as Al Gore was to make that movie that started all this."

Well that comment shows how ignorant you are on this topic. Gore's movie did not "start all this," nor did it start his own involvment in this subject. WAY back when in the 1970's when one could hardly get anyone to discuss this sort of thing in government, Al Gore was already working on the global warming/climate change issue. He has a really, really long history of studying and influencing policy on this topic. He is highly qualified to discuss this topic, as his presentation in the movie and his book clearly show. Gore graduated with honors from Harvard. He is a very intelligent person despite what you think of his politics. Thomas graduated from American University and has spent most of his life as a reporter. He has not specialized in science, nor does he appear to have much of a grasp of the fundamentals of science. He was completeley hoodwinked by the Moral Majority in the 80's and failed to realize this until the 90's, when, to his credit, he was angered by their deceit. However, he still supports their agenda and is hardly one to be calling others "fundamentalists" and "jihadists," terms that more accurately characterize his own political behavior. Getting back to the issue at hand; Gore IS HIGHLY QUALIFIED to discuss global warming. Thomas' qualifications are questionable at best.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years, 8 months ago

Personal evidence. I grew up here in eastern Kansas, and am almost 55. When I was a child, we would make baskets of flowers and candy for May day, then leave them on friends and neighbors doors. As an adult I never had a lilac bush until we bought our house 7 years ago. Lilacs now bloom at the beginning of April, instead of May. Also, I remember sledding every winter, not just some winters. If you have lived long enough, and aren't just planted in front of Tv or computer all the time, you would notice plenty of changes.

chet_larock 7 years, 8 months ago

"It's poorly written? I'm sure to a leftie it is."

No, to anyone of reasonable intelligence, it is.

"Can I not have a choice in what I read, please-thank you very much?"

Why is it not surprising R_T would choose to "read" Cal Thomas?

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 8 months ago

Right_Thinker,

How is my statement bigoted or intolerant? It's a true statement, and I'm guessing you too believe Jesus will be coming back to save everything, or should I say, just Christians.

And never once have I said these people should be denied their right to believe so.

And since we're on the subject of tolerance, let me explain it to you...for the 100th time. I do not tolerate dangerous and evil-natured people. I do tolerate innocent people, however.

Get it? Got it? Good...now go goose yourself.

imastinker 7 years, 8 months ago

I'm still not convinced that Al Gore is more reliable than Cal Thomas. His movie DID start all the hype. I realize talk of global warming has been occuring for a long time.

I wonder what one of the founders of green peace thinks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag

Roadkill_Rob 7 years, 8 months ago

Wow, a little sensitive today right_thinker?

If "fundies" is vicious and hateful in your world, how do you even leave the house?

In my world, "fundies" is a nickname for fundamentalists...nothing vicious in the term. It's just a lot easier to type "fundies". You act like it's a racial slur...you must get offended a lot.

riverdrifter 7 years, 8 months ago

"...and aren't just planted in front of Tv or computer all the time, you would notice plenty of changes." Good, salient post Dorothyhr: I've noticed exactly the same things. Also, us waterfowlers know that migration has changed. There hasn't been a grand passage in years. For years the stubble fields hereabout have been black with ducks and geese of many species in the dead of winter. Canada geese to a considerable degree, dispensed with migration years ago. Duh. Why bother? Time (and other stuff) changes things.

Matt Toplikar 7 years, 8 months ago

imastinker, Please don't fall for the movie that you've linked to above (The Great Global Warming Swindle, by Martin Durkin). I've watched the whole thing and almost fell for it myself. It's very convincing, but if you research the film at all you find out that like almost all of Martin Durkin's documentaries (in one he argues that silicone breast implants are actually beneficial to womens' health), most or all of the scientists he interviewed came out after the film was released, saying that he edited what they said for his own agenda, and used their interviews to deliberately mislead people. One way he and many other anti-climate change folks mislead people is by getting scientists to talk about old scientific experiments that have since been repeated and discredited as if they were new, cutting edge science. If you're interested here's part of a wikipedia article on the film, and a link to the article.

"Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was originally featured in the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[23][5] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[24] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[24] and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator... Wunsch has since said that Durkin "clearly quite deliberately understood my point of view but set out to imply, through the way he uses me in the film, the reverse of what I was trying to say"

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

I hate to see climate change and global warming go political again, but please read the following:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/17/arctic.ice.reut/index.html

Do you want to wait 20 years later and then discover that CO2 actually cause warming of the globe then you take action? If you use scientific approach, you will then need data to prove it, which means that it will appear as a evidence 20 years later.

If you still remain a skeptic, fine, if you ever read history and ask why civilization collaspe, you will always know the answer: Environmental change and disaster. It's really time for everyone to read history and understand the intimate relationship between the environment and men. It's hard to prove CO2 and climate change, and no one can prove the relationships... have you asked why? Because there's no solid data.... which means, it has to happen before you can get the answer... by that time, it's too late to respond.

Anyway, I don't care, mother earth will survive, but human? We'll all vanish one day like the dinosaurs (or unless you're one of those anti-evolution people....).

jumpin_catfish 7 years, 8 months ago

the earth will speak last and have the final word, we are arrogant to think we are so darn important. we don't control the earth the earth controls us and time will tell about a million years of time when all of man's dreams are dust in the wind. if our short sightedness kills us off then we didn't deserve our beautiful home after all but life will go on.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

right_thinker, Fear monger sounds more like someone who kept telling us that we should be spending money to fight terrorism, ultra-liberal should be something like a tree hugger. He showed us some scientific evidence, which isn't everything, but it shows something. Not forgetting to mention that Al Gore is nominated for Nobel Peace prize: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/139997/rush_limbaugh_and_al_gore_nominated.html

And when you read the above press, you sound just like those in the press, refusing to acknowledge that Al Gore has backing from the scientific community and insist that he's a Fear Monger. I really think you should get out to watch how the ice cap melts and not stay back in the nice couch and watch your Fox News.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/2/165350/5020

Not forgetting, Ole Danbolt Mjoes is one who thinks that Al Gore's message is very important. Now, you cannot deny the message from a scientist, or you prefer to deny that?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years, 8 months ago

OK, a couple of us have presented evidence that the climate in Kansas (which is always crazy, but used to be a different kind of crazy) has changed in the last 50 years, but those who wear blinders and only believe what Ann, Rush, and Cal tell them to believe have responded only with their usual name calling. Why don't you get out of the house, away from your computer, and take a look around. You are probably quite young, but you're also clueless about what is happening around you. I am soon to be 55, and. I've always paid attention to nature, and Kansas' climate has changed. My husband and I grew up here and it's been years since we've seen the reliable snow we saw as children. Yes, it does still snow,but not as often. Spring comes earlier and winter arrives later than when we were children. My birthday is in the beginning of September, and I could always count on the heat of summer being gone, but not anymore. And the birds don't migrate. If the emmisions from cars aren't harmful, then why don't you pump them into your house, so it smells good. I don't know if some of you don't have children or grandchildren, or you just don't give a hoot about them, but I want mine to have a decent life. Maybe you don't worry about the soldiers who are dying, so we can have cheap fuel, but I do. I want them home with their families. I'm sick of these car makers who are putting their money into advertising and creating fancy stuff to put on a car so they can up the price. Their R&D needs to be put into creating a car that doesn't run on gas, then mass producing it. If Henry Ford was alive, that's what he would do. The first car company that does that, will make a fortune.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 8 months ago

right_thinker says: I'd rather vanish like a dinosaur than succumb to the propaganda...


Yoda says... Oh, you will...You WILL...

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

dorothyhr,

I admire your courage to write this! And I sincerely appreciate your observation. I hate to say that politicians and media like to present things that are twisted so many times. While we blame politicians for invading Iraq to get cheap oil, or blame Al Gore for being too liberal, we fail to look into ourselves: Why do we need such a big SUV and give away all the monies for oil? The message is very clear, we're a worst threat to ourselves than any other terrorist groups and countries can cause us! The terrorists blew up World Trade Center that killed over 3000 innocents, but we put our soldiers in the wrong place and now the casualties are more than 4000! (not counting the injured!). We blame China for all the recalls, and toxic toys but their imports have yet killed anyone here, and who else do we have to blame? Media trying to twist the news? Who's to blame? Ourselves, for wanting so much so cheap! Who else do we want to blame when the kid tore up a toy and swallow a magnet.... the toy company should get half the blame, the other? Parents are not watching and teaching their children properly anymore!

It's sad to see how some kids blame their teachers and professors for all the bad grades. Do we blame them? No! We blame ourselves for showing them bad example by putting the blames to others! Even if those are skeptic about global warming, you should understand the word "global" and it's not regional. Are we wrong or other countries nuts? I bet you'd want to keep on saying: Freedom Fries, when the French refused to join us in the invasion of Iraq... we told them to get lost! If many sensible countries acknowledge climate change, are they wrong by the way?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years, 8 months ago

livingstone, you need to go back and read my post again, I think. We are at war because people won't give up their gas guzzlers. I have always tried to drive cars with high gas mileage, and take the bus or walk, when possible. My husband and I are waiting to buy the new Volkswagen Jetta turbo coming out in the spring. It's suppose to get great gas mileage. I've never called French Fries, freedom fries. The French were right. We should have listened to them. rightthinker and the others probably would rather die than to live sensibly on this earth, but I'm not willing to go with them. He and his crowd are not even willing to fight in Iraq for their war for their cheap oil, they send others over there. All they can do is sit on their computers all day, calling people names. Let me sink to their level and call the kettle black --- They are all sniveling cowards.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

dorothyh,

Thought that you really need to read mine . I was trying to reinforce your ideas with mine, which goes hand in hand...... I was trying to show that people refuses to listen, and am not referring to you.

Gary Sandell 7 years, 8 months ago

gsandell (Anonymous) says:

OK-So where are all of you Global Warming fanatics that would dispute Cal's words? Got any facts to convince me he is not right?


Gee...73 posts later...I guess I opened a can of worms! Yeah...The pig's are flyin' Pilgrim.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years, 8 months ago

Sorry, livingstone gsandell - So your response is only more name calling. Quit being a coward and dispute the evidence given you. Or haven't your right wing pundits pulled your strings yet, and told you what to say. I am giving you my lifetime personal observations of the change. The scientists don't even have to tell me what's happening, but you puppets can't respond until your leaders tell you what to say, and none of them have responded to my personal observations, so you are at a loss for words. Of course, you're probably sitting in your front of your computer in your mommy's basement, and don't even know if it's rained unless someone tells you. Try paying attention to the world around you.

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"The last time I heard, about 95% of all scientist who know anything about climate science are convinced that man-made climate change is underway."

Could someone provide a link which shows that.

First I heard it was 90% certain. Then someone changed it to 90% scientists believe that. Now it's 95% scientists (*with a qualification)

Momentum of the hype generates nondisputable "facts" which shouldn't be questioned?

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

No problem dorothyr...

gr, even here at KU, there are still some scientists who don't believe. In fact, opinion is no longer valid. Ole Danbolt Mjoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Danb...) is the one who states very clearly that Al Gore's message is very important and recommended him for the Nobel peace prize.

Evidents for global warming: http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

Evidents against GW: http://www.fdrs.org/arguments_against_global_warming.html

Can you see that the evidents against are mainly opinion based?

At the least, GW is proven true, but the only problem lies with how much each reason contributes to it. No scientists doubt that GW is solely caused by human activities, but there are correlations showing CO2 increase and global temperature. Skeptics argued, without statistics, that GW is not happening... hummm...

Not sure you know that there are a few annual conferences organized by historians on denying the holocaust and man actually stepped on the moon?

I'm really not surprised that even the most established scientists dispute GW, but they really need to come out with their own evidents and not simply criticize current evidents.

lunacydetector 7 years, 8 months ago

"Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

lunacydetector 7 years, 8 months ago

oh, i'm sorry, global warming is causing sunspots.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

lunacydetector,

No one denies that the sun is causing global warming too. In fact, you agree that GW is true, which many call it a "fear mongering" tool. But how much it actually contributes? How much human activities contribute? Human activities DO contribute to GW, if you know how CO2 behave.

Remember we used to have a great ozone layer that blocks harmful UV ray? if you visit the countryside, even if it's just outside of a large city, you will find that it has cooler temperature than the city itself, right? So the argument is that the CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which has a higher ability to trap heat (that's why city is warmer than the countryside, and laboratory tests prove that greenhouse gases absorb and trap more heat), and with the broken hole in the sky, more heat is trapped on earth and the heat is not able to dissipate. Then, the UV ray coming from the sun is now shooting directly into the earth surface.... so what's the consequence? Heating up of mother earth.

So, you can see the effects are two way, earth's inability to reflect the radiation from the sun (due to a broken ozone layer), and atmosphere's ability to trap heat (due to increase greenhouse gas). The heat finds no other way to escape from mother earth, unlike when there was a better ozone layer, and more oxygen in the air (and more growing trees to take away the carbon level). To reach energy equilibrium, radiation converts into heat energy, i.e. rising temperature.

As a scientist, we should look at the whole effect and not simply look at one. Carbon dioxide does not produce heat, it traps heat. So the heat source comes from the sun. Radiation from the sun does not have the ability to trap itself (Mars is extremely hot on the side exposed to the sun but extremely cool on the side that is not exposed to the sun, the same phenomenon as the desert). So the sun provides the extra heat, but greenhouse gases provide the mean to trap the heat (minus the ozone layer).

Some scientists like to look at one side to argue, and the other on the other side. While we cannot stop the sun from sending us all that radiation (we need them too), we can help ourselves by eliminating those variables that trap the radiation on mother earth, thus reducing the impact of climate change due to the extra radiation. As you observe, trees grow extremely fast when they have more sunlight (tropical region especially), what does this tell you? More heat will be trapped as "food" for plants. City is definitely warmer than countryside.... and the only argument? Moisture and oxygen level.... and some other reasons.

Do my arguments tell you something fresh?

Lucky7Star 7 years, 8 months ago

Just a little update:

1.Since July, the smallest record of sea ice area in the Arctic Ocean has been broken every day. 2.Since the beginning of August, the shrinkage of sea ice has been accelerated by a low pressure system generated and lingering off Siberia. 3.On August 15, the total sea ice area in the Arctic Ocean reached a new low. 4.If this pace of melting continues, the sea ice area reduction pace may significantly exceed the IPCC forecast, and it may actually reach the forecasted values for 2040 to 2050.

Did someone mention something about a Nürnberg Tribunal?

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

Lucky7Star,

Well, many Japanese still dispute Nanking Massacre.... even though there are many pictures and many books published on this topic. There are always skeptics among us, but the biggest problem is that these skeptics always hijack the most important tool: The media, and when the non-skeptics try to put the message across... they accuse these people for hijacking the media and politics. It's like FoxNews calling Michael Moore or Jon Stewart "making use of conservatives to make their news".... it's no news anymore to many of the "enlightened" ones. Fox News called itself "fair and balance"...... and "We report, you decide"...

Did anyone, before they accuse Al Gore of being ultra liberal and fear monger, heard that he actually got nominated for Nobel Peace prize? I bet something is wrong with those on the Nobel Prize nomination committee.... Al Gore didn't get the nomination because he lost the election but he won it because of his message on Global Warming.

The argument about GW is OVER! Now it's the time to find a solution to GW! Wake up folks!

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

Lucky7Star,

I had to say again, just in case of misunderstanding... I'm supporting your points.

Matt Toplikar 7 years, 8 months ago

livingstone, I agree with you about CO2 being a cause for Climate change, but I think you may be wrong about the ozone layer. As far as I remember reading in science classes in high school and college, the ozone layer problem has more to do with skin cancer concerns dealing with radiation and doesn't really have much to do with Global Warming. If I'm wrong about this, send me a link about it.

Mkh 7 years, 8 months ago

Lots of wasted breath here. If you all would concentrate on the real issue, Peak Oil, then you'd realize that Global Warming can be handled in the process. The longer we argue over scientific semantics, the longer we'll stand idle and not act.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

mtoplikar,

Yes, you're right, the relationship between ozone layer and global warming is relatively small though there are some who suggested that ozone depletion may cause some cooling effect but not much. I got the lower ozone layer mixed up with the upper one. The lower ozone layer trapped heat and has increased over the past centuries due to human activities. Yeap, I apologize for mixing up both theories.

But then, after reading this article (funded by the National Science Foundation), we may rethink again how ozone and greenhouse gases could affect global climate change (taking away my claim on global warming):

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/4/1412.pdf

I think it's really time to think about what we should be doing.

Matt Toplikar 7 years, 8 months ago

Mkh, I totally agree that Peak Oil is going to change our society drastically in the next 10-15 years. I've been following it for a while now and really haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. But, we can't pretend that Climate Change isn't a huge problem as well. Even after Peak Oil hits, people will still be using gasoline. The thing about Peak Oil is that we won't be completely sure that it has happened until 5-10 years after the fact, and when it happens, the price of oil won't necessarily spike up suddenly. Instead, it will steadily increase every year, with small spikes happening depending on unknown situations (such as natural disasters or oil spills).

The interesting thing is that both Peak Oil and Global Warming (and much of our problems in the Mid-East for that matter) have the same solution. Get rid of our dependence on oil. To do this, we are not only going to have to look to other sources of energy. We're also going to have to reduce the amount of energy that we each use. I know a lot of you don't want to hear it, but you should really start getting used to the idea because it's going to happen. For most of human history we've been dependent on manual and animal labor for the energy that gets most of our work done. In the last hundred or so years, we've essentially hit the energy lottery with our discovery of the incredibly cheap and energy dense substance known as petroleum (Latin for "rock oil"). This led to the industrial revolution and life as we know it. The thing is that now, we've basically come to a point where our way of living is completely dependent on abundantly cheap energy, and soon oil will neither be abundant or cheap. The reality is that we don't have a way to harness energy for as cheaply as we're doing it now. Sure, we'll have to use solar and wind power, but as far as we can see now, energy will never be this cheap.

But again, the economic problems we will have because of Peak Oil have the same solution as that of Climate Change. Because of this, the same people (the oil companies) are spending millions of dollars to muddy these issues. Now, I would guess that Carl Thomas probably isn't getting paid off by the oil companies to write a piece like this. My guess is that he's just been fooled by the huge campaign being aimed at people who would really rather not change their lifestyle.

I think it's rather fitting that he writes of childhood fantasies such as Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy, because he's obviously living two of the biggest fantasies that have been perpetuated for the last few generations. First, that the way we are living is completely normal and will only become easier and more comfortable as time marches on, and second that the earth is both our bottomless shopping cart and our bottomless trash can.

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

Dying stone,

Your "evidents" is more than adequate evidence.

You sound like the one who tried to snowi us. Blathering about the sky is falling, but failing to answer the question. Nothing I found in your links supported 95% scientists believed we cause global warming. Using a few hundered years to form an absolute "fact" when somone else on this thread objected to the same thing from the other direction.

If it's so simple, why can't you say it?

You object that the objectors have opinions. Prove that Space Aliens aren't headed this way and going to wipe out life as we know it. With whom should the burden of proof be with?

You feign with asking for evidence? Well, already, their ray guns are heating up this earth. Prove they are not.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

I thought that you following statement looks exciting:

"You object that the objectors have opinions. Prove that Space Aliens aren't headed this way and going to wipe out life as we know it. With whom should the burden of proof be with?"

Judgment that is based solely on opinions have no values in science. To prove that the other side is wrong, you will really need to come out with another theory to prove that it isn't true at all. An opinion should be respected and that's how far it gets.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

Colonel_Angus,

If you miss one thing about these planets: No human beings. Climate change will never destroy mother earth, in fact, only events in outer space can destroy it. Not even the sun could. I thought we're concerned about climate change because it affects the existence of human beings. If you take human out of the equation, that climate change is not a problem at all. Human can only exist in a very small perimeter.... and we are here for a very short time, if we cease of exist, we've just broke the record... unless you're saying that we should all turn to cockroaches?

The Nobel prize committee must be really proud to be very religious by nominating Prophet Al Gore. I'm not sure about Howard Dean and why he's a Demi-God when he never preaches about religion to us?

lounger 7 years, 8 months ago

What on our hot earth is wrong with trying to improve the planet in terms of how much pollution we have spewing out into our air? We ALL live here. This is a very irrisponsible attitude to put forth and pig headed as well. GLOBAL WARMING DOES EXIST! Grow up and face the scientific facts. If a doctor told you that you had cancer would you just deny and waste away? Wake up and feel the heat. I just dont get the people that deny this fact. Your grandkids will inherit this mess an lay the blame squarly on the nay sayers. Mark my words!

MyName 7 years, 8 months ago

gsandell:

Gee:73 posts later:I guess I opened a can of worms! Yeah:The pig's are flyin' Pilgrim.

Well let see, gsandell, there was my previous post (which was completely ignored by you, Pilgrim, and anyone else who wanted to support Thomas' ideas on this subject), where I not only refuted Thomas' specious rantings point by point, but also demonstrated how the column was self contradictory and lacked the necessary level of basic reasoning or compelling evidence to reach the standard of a legitimate argument.

But hey, if you want to slap yourself on the back for doing nothing to contribute to this subject who am I to argue with you. Give yourself a gold star if it'll make you feel better.

gontek 7 years, 8 months ago

I enjoyed reading that article, and am not suprised by the lively commentary in the Journal World.

I think you can argue and disagree about global warming aka climate change all day - how fast is it changing, who is affecting it most, how and why is it happening, etc.

One thing you have to admit is that our culture and population has the means to affect & pollute the environment, we have been doing it for thousands of years. It is ignorant and dangerous to try to convince people that environmental concerns are not valid or important, whether or not climate change is real. Thoughtless pollution from the mid 20th century has led to polluted groundwater, air quality concerns, death & illness to people and animals, which is why we have the EPA, CEQ, NEPA, etc.

Of course I don't need to tell this to people who read LJW forums!

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

Colonel_Angus,

Now you see what you say is based on opinion:

"Humans didn't cause global warming, the burning of fossil fuels has done very little. It is cyclic climate change and the preponderance of evidence is pointed toward global cooling, ice age stuff. It gets warm before the cold."

Base on what did you get this observation? Opinion has no values in science. Scientists have found alarming increase in CO2 that correlates with temperature increase, and it's plotted as a statistics. To counter that, as a scientist, efforts should be made to counter the argument with scientific evidences that temperature increases in the short span of 30 years is caused by nature (it takes more than 30 years for climate to warm up or cool down quickly, I believe if my figures are right, should be more than 100,000 years). How can you explain scientifically, less giving me an opinion, that heating can take place so quickly in less than 1 century?

"Dean is the keeper of the Dogma as the DNC lead. Thinks he's a god."

He didn't say he's God, he didn't say anything religious. He sounds more like an Atheist to me, who tries to bomb the Christian church. That doesn't make him a "assumed God"... he got labeled as God because of people like yourself, who literally takes the words from the bible and put words into other's mouth.

"Global warming is just another scheme to transfer wealth and seize power. If Al Gore says something then be assured it is self serving."

Again, you are taking the words from one part and then predict what other people is trying to tell you. The tree huggers, generally the hippies, don't get any money protesting on the street, but they didn't get their message across. So what you want Al Gore to do? Becoming a hippie? Even if he is doing it, it's really hard to get endorsement by the Nobel Prize committee, where they are stuffed tightly by professors and scientists and most of them are surviving on living wages. Generally, these committee members do not have political or economic agendas, but are hardcore scientists. Einstein got many questions like that when he was alive, and he was even questioned about his faith. But he survived all of them and remain an unwealthy person.

If the other side of the GW argument is so great, how come no one from that side got nominated for Nobel Peace prize?

"Coal is the future, it will heat our homes, power our cars and support industry. Embrace the burn!"

But you got to have scientific evident on that assumption or opinion. I respect your opinion, but why did we cut out coal? Do you remember when Romania became democratic, what happened to the entire country that relied on coal? Romanians need to wash their vegetables with detergents so that they can remove the soots from the coal. Until some scientists come out with ideas how to remove that soot from the air, I bet, coal is not the best choice of fuel.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gontek,

Exactly! EPA, why people cut away from coal... etc... are all set up based on mistakes human have committed sometime ago. Surprisingly, people never read and people forgot about history, other than our own American history of our presidents. Just a short memory ago, River Thames in England was so bad that the king refused to go near it. And remember the days when sewers were dumped into the sea? The soot that comes out from the coal actually caused many lung cancer? And yet, someone here still proposed using coal outright... I'm not suggesting that coal is not good, but scientists need to come out with good ideas how to control the pollution from coal before we dare to use it again.

MyName 7 years, 8 months ago

Angus:

Humans didn't cause global warming, the burning of fossil fuels has done very little. It is cyclic climate change and the preponderance of evidence is pointed toward global cooling, ice age stuff. It gets warm before the cold.

And the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are both alive and well and living in Palm Beach! Please, just go learn to read something that wasn't put out by Big Oil or the RNC before you post! You are starting to make yourself look ridiculous.

For example, you could look at one of these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_W... http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5716/1769 http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf

In fact, the last of these links addresses your point directly:

"The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century."

So, while there is evidence that the effects of solar activity on climate dominated the first half of the 20th century, that effect has been overtaken by the increase in greenhouse gases over the last 50 years. So warming exists and human activity has been the driver of climate change since the last half of the 20th century.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

lounger,

Right on! That's the same problem with gay's rights, environmental protections, sea level rising etc. etc. etc. The mentality is like "if I have not seen it, then it doesn't happen".

There are still skeptics about rising sea level, and not sure anyone knows that there are some islands, remember, habited islands in the pacific that are suffering the consequences of rising sea level. I saw it sometime ago, that one country (Vanuatu or what it's called), rising sea level consumed some of its island and now the country is having 30% less land area.

It's kind of dangerous for people not to open their eyes, but insist that the environmental problems we face are not caused by us, but by mother earth.

The solution should be very simple, drive more eco-friendly cars, consume less... but it's still so hard to get the message across to many people who read scientific journals like a bible (no offense to the Christians as I'm a Christian myself). Scientific journals and facts cannot be read like the bible. Science is not opinion, science is a fact. Bible needs interpretations and there can be many (that's why we have so many churches going around, and even Muslims and Jews read it differently). But in science, there is only one community... the scientific community.

Mkh 7 years, 8 months ago

"mtoplikar (Anonymous) says:

Mkh, I totally agree that Peak Oil is going to change our society drastically in the next 10-15 years. I've been following it for a while now and really haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. But, we can't pretend that Climate Change isn't a huge problem as well"


I also agree with everything you stated above, and thank you paying attention to this serious issue. These two things are going to go hand in hand. If we don't deal with Peak Oil first however, then Climate Change will only accelerate an already doomed situation.

We agree that the same solution can be applied to both problems, so let's start there. We are wasting valuable time and energy in an argument over whether or not mankind is causing Global Warming (see above) and if we should cut our carbon emmisisions to solve it. My point is that this argument is pointless, because it's based on the presumtion that we have a choice. Which I think we both agree that we do not, and Peak Oil is the thing that will finally wake people up to this fact. Which, imo, is why the media is so much more scared to deal with Peak Oil, than Global Warming, because when the public becomes educated they will realize that we must reduce our fossil fuel Consumption and utalize alternative energy to restructure our nation and economy around.

When that finally happens, the necessary steps to combat Global Warming will be taken. But, if we don't win the first battle of Peak Oil, we won't even still be in the game to take on Global Warming.

MyName 7 years, 8 months ago

Angus:

The solar irradiance mentioned in that article refers to changes in the output of energy from the sun and is not related to Mt. St. Helens, so I don't see how anything you have mentioned has any bearing on my previous post, though I suppose the problem could be that "Toss in other major eruptions and you have the solar irradiance you cited" isn't really a complete sentence.

Moreover, the volcanic eruptions you mentioned are entirely different from human activity as they are not primarily made up of CO2, but rather of fine pieces of clay and dust, along with sulfur oxides and the like. In fact, because these particles reflect sunlight into space rather than trapping them in the atomsphere like CO2 does, Volcanic eruptions can actually offset some of the effects of global warming, though not enough to completely reverse the trend.

Additionally, I'm sure the other articles I linked to include the CO2 emitted from oceans in the overall picture and still show that CO2 from fossil fuels is the driving force behind global warming. Something you have yet to refute. And I also have yet to see you actually link to any source to back up your specious claims. Not even http://www.toothfairy.com/ which has as much truth as your postings seem to.

packrat 7 years, 8 months ago

I do not doubt that the earth is getting warmer, but I still believe it has much more to to with the sun than anything we are doing.

The earth has had several cooling and warming trends this is just another one.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

Colonel_Angus,

Your argument that 1934 was the hottest year in the United States recorded history is true. But take a slight look at this:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/weather/2003836745_temperature15.html

Remember, it's global warming and not United States warming. That's how the world feels and not we feel. 1934.... the year when most of the world were living as colonies, and no one knew or cared about temperatures. This 1934 data was disputed as it doesn't represent global temperature. But the heat trend in Europe, Asia and United States..... and rising sea level in some Pacific islands... they will tell that the 1934 data is BS.

Say that to any Pacific Islanders and the Australians... http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/levels.htm

It's time to think global.... not just the US... it's Global Warming.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

In most cases, I can clearly see that the argument against Global Warming is more political. Why? Many of you start off by attacking Al Gore. But Al Gore didn't do the work. He simply copied the works of many scientists. So how moron is Al Gore? How he become a prophet? I dunno, but I can see attempts to discredit GW simply through attacking Al Gore. In many sense, most of those who dispute GW only watches the movie by Al Gore and not looking at the fact that he copied from others. Again and again, no one can prove to me why he got nominated by the Nobel Prize committee if his data is so flawed. Unless you also agree with me that you can never dispute Nobel prize and their members, no matter whether you're pro or anti GW theories.

You can clearly see in most of my arguments, I have never brought up any politics. There's no political motive in Nobel Prize committee or real scientific community. There are definitely some skeptics scientists living among us, and I think it's good that these people exist to make us rethink about our own theories and concepts.

So, what's so political about Al Gore's message when he never does any work other than putting them together? So go on attack Al Gore and Howard Dean... I don't care. But anyone dare to dispute Nobel Prize? Challenge me.

It's the same for those who dispute the Evolution Theory and start some crappy and no-basis theory of creation theory. I'm not saying that there's no God, but when we are talking about science, leave God and politics alone! Will you?

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

Summers_Eve,

Oh, Al Gore again..... Al Gore is not a scientist, he just made a film... you know why? Cos not many of us watch History Channel, Discovery Channel anymore. Too many of us watch soap operas and I thought he tries hard to bring something more important in a more exciting way. You won't want to listen to those boring scientists talking about Global Warming, will you? If you do, turn on the Research Channel. They have better concepts and ideas for you than Al Gore. But again, will you tune in to those boring channels? Go on, attack Al Gore the way you want. I thought you really should focus on the main issue.

gontek 7 years, 8 months ago

Even if you don't believe it is happening, you still don't I throw debris in backyards, dump hydrocarbons in creeks and/or release refrigerants into the atmosphere. Anyone who does those things is a criminal.

I can do little things to make my environment, my home, livable. Things like recycling and using environmentally friendly materials when cost is comparable seem like good ideas to me. Efficient appliances and vehicles not only have less environmental impact, they cut my monthly expenses.

I thought this was a good article. It is true that many scientists at UCS, EPA, government and private industry have gainful employment due to environmental issues and promote scientific evidence supporting global warming. It is their job, and fortunately for them there is no shortage of catastrophic environmental damage going on from past or recent human activity.

The problem of climate change is chronic/long term in nature, as it (by definition) takes place over many years or generations. I think that whether or not one thinks climate change is happening and/or due to human interference with nature, it can be agreed upon that a warming climate and sea level rise could be problematic to future or even immediate generations. Its a scary thought, but the fear is supported by the evidence.

The effect of recent society on the environment is not always so long term. It would be a shame if it warming became such an immediately dangerous issue.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/01.htm

for more "facts" http://www.ucsusa.org http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"Its a scary thought, but the fear is supported by the evidence."

May be scary, but why connect it with us causing global warming?

"Even if you don't believe it is happening, you still don't I throw debris in backyards, dump hydrocarbons in creeks and/or release refrigerants into the atmosphere."

Why accomplish an end result by spreading lies? Why can't, not polluting, stand on it's own? Don't you realize that when the climate cycles the other way, the reason to stop polluting will be removed and in fact, encouraged?

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

  1. Greenhouse gases have the ability to absorb and retain more heat than other gases;
  2. Human generates most of the greenhouse gases, but also responsible for reducing earth capabilities of rejuvenating these gases to convert them back to healthier gases, such as oxygen etc.;
  3. You cannot deny that greenhouse gases have increased over the years, mainly due to human activities;
  4. You cannot deny that with less greenhouse gases, the atmosphere has less ability to trap the heat in the air;
  5. You cannot deny that USA is responsible for generating over 70% of the greenhouse gases;
  6. I didn't deny that the sun is causing more heat to be sent to Mother Earth;
  7. But I'm highlighting the need to reduce greenhouse gases to reduce the effect of GW, which you cannot deny that greenhouse gases can cause a huge difference;
  8. You cannot deny that there is an ozone layer at the lower level (caused by human activities) that helped trap heat and not allowing it to dissipate into space;

With more and more greenhouse gases in the air, the effect of GW becomes more obvious (instead of rising temperature due to global warming effect from natural sources), and increases temperature increase by a lot more than when it naturally occurs.

No one denies that natural causes increase temperature, but earth has less capabilities to dissipate the heat that it absorbs due to greenhouse gases.

It's not difficult to know this, if you lock yourself up in a room and let temperature rises due to CO2... it's warm, isn't it? It's cooler in the countryside than in the city right?

It's not doomsday prediction, but it's whether we can adjust quick enough to move people inland or do some measures to remediate the situations fast enough. No one predicts a doomsday coming, when did Al Gore says that? It's really flooding a lot more and coastal areas are having less land then it used to have. Go around the world and simply take a look at the shoreline. The sea is really eating up the coast. I was at Phuket 10 years ago, and just before the Tsunami, and guess what? The shore is much higher than 10 years ago. The sea level is really rising, cause by human? Go ahead to argue, but rising shoreline, will affect Florida, California and etc.... what can they do? Move inland.

How about those islands? Well, we simply ask them go and live on the sea. I visited some Fuji sometime ago and their shoreline is really smaller than it used to be. Don't believe? Take a trip there and you will learn.

So, human has not caused anything, right? Greenhouse gases do not contribute anything right? The volcanoes eruptions give out more CO2 right? I buy into all that... so let's so worrying about our oil... and coal... let it go let it go let it go....

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

livingstone, a succulent. Could it be one which lives in the mideast?

A terrorist?

One who wishes to destory the U.S.?

English as a third or fourth language?

===========

Lies and more lies.

Here's one: "You cannot deny that USA is responsible for generating over 70% of the greenhouse gases;"

Proof, please.

(It's them space aliens, I tell you! Prove it's not. There - one or the other, please)

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

How had my posting make you think I'm a terrorist? Funny. But read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/pop/energy/

Per pax, Americans consume more energy than the rest of the world, even China is catching up but their per capita is still far lower than us.

Claiming that makes me a terrorist? You must be really ignorant to ignore our own problems in this country: Consumerism and over consumption. That is the problem we have today for huge amount of imports and trade imbalance: Our own consumption! I thought you might want to wake up from your dream. Nice try on labeling me a terrorist, and of course, anyone who speaks the truth, even though it's hard to listen to, is anti-American? I bet not. If our consumption for energy is far lesser, we won't be relying on the imports of oil that put us in such a vulnerable position. In fact, you're funding the terrorists by not condoning to the reduction of oil consumption.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

I thought that labeling you a terrorist makes me feel better. Osama GR...!

MyName 7 years, 8 months ago

Angus:

Global warming may be happening, it certainly isn't man causing it. Al Gore and his legion of doomsayers are trying to use fear to control you. Grow a pair and reject the lies.

Again, you tread out this tired statement and have nothing to back it up.

People have gone out there and done the work to answer the question, and the answer is "Yes, human activity is the leading driver of global warming". There is no "fear mongering" here it's just a simple statement of fact. And how is acknowledging the fact that "because we are the cause of global warming we can also do something to stop the problem" something to be afraid of? That's what I don't understand about your viewpoint, if you want to call such a tired cliche a viewpoint.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

My last words. You sound very much like the current Bush administration: If you're not with me, you're with them. Also, you're quick to form judgment, i.e. if you speak against me, you're a terrorist. You're so quick to judge base on one statement and called that a lie... it's not a lie, it's a data that I've presented wrongly. But as you see from my data, that Americans are using far more energy that they should. That threatens our security more than Osama Bin Laden does. We need to rely on foreign oil to fulfill that demand and most of the oil lies somewhere below the ground in the very unstable region. There's nothing wrong to call for a reduction of greenhouse gas emission using that reason alone, but will the politicians or people like you listen? Nope. It takes the removal of the current administration to wake all of us up, that it's partially our responsibility for funding the terrorist groups around the world by relying so much on foreign oil and not exploiting what we have: Solar and wind power. Even at the last minute, Bush had to admit defeat by saying that we're addicted to foreign oil. If climate change doesn't scare you, our economy collaspe may!

The solution is simple: Consume less energy, and consume less products and export more. I wonder why you got so worked up by just one small figure, and that blinds you from seeing the real issues we're talking about. I wonder why you're so focused on the accuracy of the data and not the big picture? I wonder why you're so focused on attacking Al Gore and not his message? I wonder why you're so worked up with some statement and start accusing other of being terrorists? You sound so much like the current administration, where words and terms like "Axis of Evil", "Saddam is the evil one"... are all invented to blur the most important information from the general public. The overuse of the word "terrorists", "fear", "they are against us"... make us fear so much that it feels like the world is coming up against us! But hey, no! Didn't we say something against the French and wanted to change the name of our fries? (What a stupid thing I've ever heard in my entire life).

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

The focus is not the word but the message. I've also learned that if someone is quick to call you names, and not able to hold on to their anger, they're not fit to do a reasonable discussion (in this case, I mean you), because these people are so worked out by some small statements that the few words or statements take away their rational behavior and thinking. To that, I think many politicians know that if they put some "words" into the system and media, they will divert the real attention away from the real problem and they can keep their power.

So gr, I think you should cool down your heads and argue on the point with me and not get so worked out. A cool mind is a better mind. I rest my case and you go home and think about what we should do to prevent more money going into funding terrorism. (Again, I'm not saying that we're funding terrorism, but our addiction to oil indirectly give more money to terrorism). Thus, isn't it nice to have less greenhouse gases in the air, cleaner environment, and a stable energy source at the same time? You should do more thinking than criticizing.

MyName 7 years, 8 months ago

Why accomplish an end result by spreading lies? Why can't, not polluting, stand on it's own? Don't you realize that when the climate cycles the other way, the reason to stop polluting will be removed and in fact, encouraged?

These are not lies, the only people stating something patently false are those that keep repeating the "global warming is not caused by human activity" falsehood. And the problem with this viewpoint is that there is no reason to believe that (barring a massive decline in CO2 emissions) the climate will cycle back to a level anywhere close to what it was before human industrial activity. Willful ignorance is not an option unless you want to get used to seeing millions of people dying because of diesease, famine, and wars over (dwindling) resources.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

To those who use the words again.... "Fear mongering", "terrorist", "Axis of evil", "Recall", "Prophets", "Morons"... these are all political words to strike damages on the opponents. Use them less often and get your arguments on the ground. It's not about Al Gore, it's about our environment.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

MyName,

History shows that Nations fought for scarce resources and people died because of that. It's not doomsday forecasting, but it's a fact that history has proved. Human race will survive after that... we survived WWI, WWII, etc... but the problem is human will suffer. During war, everyone suffers. We all know that conserving resources is one of the best ways to prevent wars for scarce resources from happening. But someone else will come to you and tell you that "War is inevitable" argument. Men never learn from history!

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

max1,

I thought you might want to read my postings clearly. I was rebutting people who aim the who GW issues at Al Gore and not on the real issue, which is our environment and the existing of human beings. It's not about Al Gore, it's about us.

I thought Al Gore isn't the only one trying to get this message across... the Nobel Prize is doing its best, and I bet you've heard of David Suzuki (whom I know has not political link to anything). Cheers, we're on the same front.

lunacydetector 7 years, 8 months ago

so many posts....don't have time to read them all. please forgive if this was mentioned above: The Case For Skepticism On Global Warming Michael Crichton "Michael's detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease."

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

a pretty sharp dude. to read more, click link:

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"Also, you're quick to form judgment," No, it's been after endless posts of no relevant facts.

"You're so quick to judge base on one statement and called that a lie" Not one statement, one example of many statements.

"it's not a lie, it's a data that I've presented wrongly." Ahhh... At least you're partially honest.

"But as you see from my data, that Americans are using far more energy that they should." From your link: "The US emits more, absolutely and per head, than any other country"

US has more cell-phones, too. What does that mean? Does not mean we are causing global warming. It's back to a boy peeing in the ocean raises the level. He is "contributing" to the volume, you know.

"I think you should cool down your heads and argue on the point with me" I've tried, but you keep going with meaningless "facts".

Tell us - how are we causing global warming? Why do you refuse?
With everyone refusing to answer such a simple question, gives me more belief you guys are full of it. Trying to pull the wool over us.

Don't show the other endless non-relevant trivia you've been showing. Answer that one point. Don't make conclusions, inference, inductions. Or I'll ask you to prove it's not caused by space aliens. Answer, what factual evidence is there that we are causing global warming?

C_hertling 7 years, 8 months ago

Livingstone Said: 5. You cannot deny that USA is responsible for generating over 70% of the greenhouse gases;

Livingstone provided this link to back up his statement: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm

Within that article, it states that the US is responsible for 36.1% of all CO2 Emmisions.

36.1% = 70%??? I don't think so. Seems to me that I CAN deny your facts. Your own supporting evidence denies your "facts".

Should I continue? Or have I made my point clear?

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"Should I continue? Or have I made my point clear?"

Oh, now you'll be blamed for judging him on only one statement! Besides, he'll say, "it's not a lie, it's a data that I've presented wrongly. "

lunacydetector's link: "Mann's work has come under attack from several laboratories around the world. Two Canadian investigators,"..."when they corrected all the errors, they came up with sharply differing results." Two disagreed with one. If truth is based upon the majority of scientists....Mann's global warming is not truth. In fact, further reading indicates FRAUD. But, to the intelligent people, that wouldn't be breaking news.

Excellent link!

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

"I don't know if there is or isn't. That doesn't answer the question as if humans cause global warming. Neither does your link."

So you don't know. If you don't know and there isn't any data, why are you still arguing with me?

"Yeah, me too. Same as space aliens. You don't comprehend?"

So your only theory is space alien causes global warming... nice try.

"Perhaps reliable, but not relevant. You do provide continuous trivia! However, it doesn't relate to: what factual evidence is there that we are causing global warming?"

I bet you should go back to school to learn English again. So you are doubting the documents and information published by the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, and two Universities?

Try harder, keep asking the question like "what factual evidence is there that we are causing global warming?" and avoiding seeing the data from NSF and EPA really make you an ignorant person, you're just too afraid to tell me that you don't have any data to disprove that theory, right? And you're also telling me that you don't understand science and how it works right?

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

You refuse to verify my other points (other than concentrating on just the 70%). Does that mean you acknowledge all the other facts?

And why you accuse me of being a terrorist?

Also, I did present so much data, but did you read them?

Also, you didn't explain why Nobel nominates Al Gore and acknowledges human activities causing global warming? Unless you doubt the credibility of the Nobel Prize?

So, all you did was attacking Al Gore (which is not a big deal, he's just a man), and continue to say that GW is false? You've not answered my question on why Nobel nominates Al Gore which then make them endorses GW is caused by human activities.

I've never said that GW is solely caused by human activities. I've posted many information linking you to the sun, earth activities and human activities combined to make GW real. But you keep saying that I continue to claim that human activities is the sole cause... I didn't say that. Read my postings.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

C_hertling,

I did acknowledge that the 70% is a wrong figure. However, I have also provided other information to gr but he manages to read that one statement. Just a repeat, can anyone tell me, what other statement (other than the 70%) is wrong.

  1. Greenhouse gases have the ability to absorb and retain more heat than other gases;
  2. Human generates most of the greenhouse gases, but also responsible for reducing earth capabilities of rejuvenating these gases to convert them back to healthier gases, such as oxygen etc.;
  3. You cannot deny that greenhouse gases have increased over the years, mainly due to human activities;
  4. You cannot deny that with less greenhouse gases, the atmosphere has less ability to trap the heat in the air;

  5. I didn't deny that the sun is causing more heat to be sent to Mother Earth;

  6. But I'm highlighting the need to reduce greenhouse gases to reduce the effect of GW, which you cannot deny that greenhouse gases can cause a huge difference;
  7. You cannot deny that there is an ozone layer at the lower level (caused by human activities) that helped trap heat and not allowing it to dissipate into space;

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

lunacydetector,

Michael has an argument there. The extreme is what we called tree huggers, and the other extreme is called skeptics. Both sides are not fully wrong nor they are fully right. Pollution is a problem, just take a plane to Los Angeles and you will know pollution is bad. We don't need to protect every trees but to make sure that every tree we cut down, we replace them (if not our children will never have trees anymore). It's good to have energy efficient vehicle, it saves you the pollution and make us breathe better air than those who live in Los Angeles. Total elimination of greenhouse gases is not possible, but a lot of greenhouse gases is not good either. The atmosphere needs to have some level of CO2 but the atmosphere and human cannot tolerate toxic gases that are produced by human being.

I've never bought an SUV or some cars that burn 1 gallon of gas every 20 miles or less. It makes sense for us not to put some toxic gases into the air. The oil industry fought so hard for so many years to stop policy against removing lead from gas, but it takes some courages people to make them do so. It took so many years to force the cigarette companies to put a label on their boxes to inform smokers that they are taking in things that are bad for them. They kept on insisting that cigarette smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer. Now, we should understand that too much greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, including helping to warm the air surrounding us. But there are still skeptics throwing the ball back and say that CO2 doesn't warm the air, and deviate from the real problem: We need more energy efficient cars in the LONG RUN.

Energy efficiency is good for the country in the long run. Recycling is only good when there are means to do so. In the short run, none of these are good, but we all live for today and not tomorrow.

I hope you can balance between what this country needs in the long run.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 8 months ago

Wow...Michael Crighton... He's amazing. I think he should be president. There would be no chance of any Clintonian evil with him around. That guy can obviously toot his own horn, blow his own cigar, whistle his own dixie, cream the corn of his own cob... We can all pick our facts and speculate. You don't even have to be a geniusoidal humanitariananny saint like MC! http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 I don't necessarily believe in catastrophic global warming caused primarily by man and leading to our inevitable destruction. I do believe in catastrophic, global environmental degradation caused by man which will lead to a whole poopload of destruction. I'm not sure how you can live on this planet and believe everything is fine and dandy. I do love global warming, though. It's something we can all debate incessantly and without the ability to prove much of anything to each other, instead of doing anything useful like controlling our population.

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

succulent,

Since English must be your 3rd, 4th, or 5th language, you must not understand what is being said. (Mind you, I only know one, so that's worth saying something for you! It's just that you may not understand some of the meanings of English) I picked one example of a blatant lie, and another picked another example. When C_hertling asked if he need continue, he implied most or ALL of your statements are lies and/or have no validity.

You seem caught up on the percentage. I never questioned the percentage as I was questioning your statement in general. It does not match the conclusion of what the link said, nor could be proved. Maybe another, "presented wrongly".

Want another? "You cannot deny that greenhouse gases have increased over the years, mainly due to human activities;" Proof, please. But, don't answer that, because you'll attempt to sidetrack the issue to your endless non-related trivia. Jump down and answer the last line which you keep refusing.

Furthermore, I did not accuse you of being a terrorist. I only asked a question or suggested it. You seemed very defensive. Which leads us to wonder if it's true.

As I said before, you presented non-relevant trivia. You have over and over REFUSED to present related facts. Why is that so hard for you? I say, because it doesn't exist. Each time you refuse, it confirms the thinkers more and more.

When you compare Gore to GW, I mistakenly thought you meant, G.W. Bush. Ha, ha. It didn't make sense. Being nominated, or voted, does not make something true. In addition, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16920923/ said: "Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming," That's a little different than being nominated for establishing humans cause global warming. Maybe you can say, "it's a data that I've presented wrongly."

I never said global warming is false. I only questioned if it was true. There have been facts presented which show for a fraction of a period of earth's history, it does seem to be increasing in temperature based upon methods of measurements. I am saying, you and everyone else I am aware of, have refused to show any facts of how we are causing global warming - solely or partially. Why do you refuse?

"I've never said that GW is solely caused by human activities." That would be like me saying the ocean levels are not solely rising from a little boy peeing in it, but he should still be held responsible for coastal flooding. Do you really think a little boy peeing in the ocean has anything to do with increasing the ocean volume to any relevant significance? Same with CO2. The "pee" is bigger, but so is the "ocean".

Answer please, what factual evidence is there that we are causing global warming?

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

Fabulous, you didn't even answer my question why Nobel is so concerned about global warming? Except using MSNBC's argument against it, where MSNBC has to be very political to stay neutral on most issues... right? Let me correct your statement on the Nobel peace prize: "Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming," In short, you are denying that Nobel prize endorses Al Gore's message, and MSNBC "represents" what Nobel Prize means. You are basing your idea on a statement made by a third party.

What are his efforts? To be nominated, you not just have to prove that you are putting in efforts, but your statement and ideas have to be honestly true. In short, your theory is widely acceptable and true to a certain extend. Simply stirring up feelings will not get you any peace prize nomination. He didn't win the prize because he didn't put his words into actions. In addition, when one gets nominated, what goes with him/her is the entire messages and that Nobel is clearly stating that his words are true to a certain extend.

Let me give you an example. Stalin was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize! But he was a scum. If Al Gore is a scum, but Nobel doesn't care. What they really care is the message and the honesty in the achievement of the goals and the truth in the message or ideas that they are presenting the nomination too.

Read this: http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html

Ghandi never got nominated for a nobel prize! Can you believe that?

Read this: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html

I rest my case, to better understand how Nobel nominates it candidates, please please.. go to Nobel Prize website and not MSNBC.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

And I thought our discussion is not about Al Gore and Bush? Or you think it is? What factual evidence is there that human is NOT causing greenhouse gases emissions? I thought I answered that question already? Read my posts, I hate repeating myself.

But this article will help you understand that human activities are contributing to greenhouse gases.... you keep saying that human activities are not causing increase in greenhouse gases:

If you still doubt, check up this EPA website:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/emissions.html

Now, do you still doubt EPA?

Your argument, based on MSNBC (a media that is not independent, and they are trying to avoid offending either side), concluded that importance of global warming is real... so what you are saying is that human has nothing to do with it (that makes you dispute EPA's stands), and worst of all, we can do nothing with regards to global warming, and case close.

The main problem with Skeptics, like yourself, is that... as I have prove, using MSNBC information to evaluate Nobel Prize information... wow, I thought that is the reason why some skeptics remain skeptics.

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"You are basing your idea on a statement made by a third party." Hmmm. Interesting.

"What factual evidence is there that human is NOT causing greenhouse gases emissions? "

Not the question. Significant greenhouse gases and Global Warming is.

Try reading this a little slower: Answer please, what factual evidence is there that we are causing global warming?

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

I thought you might like to read this to educate yourself: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

There are many many sources. Also, I'm very tired to educating one by one, and repeat myself again and again (I've already taught you the relationship, please take serious look at my earlier postings and don't expect me to spoon-feed you).

I thought you might want to take some classes in English and Science/Statistics. I've answered your question with an earlier post. I hate to repeat myself. If you want R-square to be 1.0, it's nver possible in science. That's how the skeptics, like yourself want GW scientists to prove that. In real science, there isn't R-square = 1.0. R-square may be 0.75 and that can be acceptable by any scientific standards and prove that there are relationships, depending on how you see it. So, being a scientist myself for many years, I know that there are scientists who go around publishing papers to show that the whole theory is WRONG, because they focus on the portion and data that didn't correlate (i.e. the portion where R-square is not equal to 0.25). It's easy to say other theory is wrong. For example, not every cigarette smoker will get lung cancer, because the tolerance of some smokers is higher than the others. If you work that R-square, you will never get 1.0. That is the reason used by the tobacco companies to invalidate the claim that cigarette smoking is not the cause of lung cancer.

So, if GW is not caused by human being, can you not avoid this question: What causes GW? And where is your evidence to prove that you're right? Make sure that your R-square is 1.0, if not, I can also prove you wrong. Also, prove to me that greenhouse gases is not the cause of GW. Prove to me that greenhouse gases are not produced by human beings.

As you continuously avoided my question, is Nobel Prize flawed in its judgment on Al Gore's messages? You used an MSNBC to explain Nobel Prize is only endorsing Al Gore's actions to bring GW to life, but you didn't acknowledge that Nobel, once nominate Al Gore, also endorses his message: Human is generating greenhouse gases and causing GW (not the only source, but one of the sources).

I've never once doubt about the credibility of the Nobel Prize, and EPA. Did you?

Flap Doodle 7 years, 8 months ago

This is kinda old news. Sort of a crowded field this go-around. "London, Feb.23 (ANI): A total of 181 people and organisations have been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Institute said on Friday. Former US vice president Al Gore and Malaysia's ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad are known to be on the list. The secretary of the Nobel committee and head of the institute, Geir Lundestad, told reporters in Oslo, Norway, that this was the third highest list of nominees for the peace prize in Nobel Prize history. The five-member Nobel committee never reveals the names of the nominees, and keeps its list secret for 50 years. Al Gore known to have been nominated by two Norwegian MPs for his efforts to limit global warming, while four Bosnian civil groups have nominated Mahathir for helping Bosnia after its bloody civil war. Bolivian President Evo Morales has also been nominated by Indian and Latin American organisations.The winner of the prize will be announced in October. (ANI with inputs)" Rush Limbaugh has been nominated this year also.

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"Prove to me that greenhouse gases are not produced by human beings." Prove to me that greenhouse gases are not produced by space aliens.

So you think Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore could share a prize? (Thanks Snap!)

Answer please, what factual evidence is there that we are causing global warming? Or do you accept defeat?

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

I thought you might be a retarded person. Read my old posting on the University of Michigan's study for the "factual evidence is there that we are causing global warming?". Or are you trying to hide away from scientific report?

So you don't have data to disprove that correlation between CO2 and GW (which the Michigan's study clearly shows that), you don't have data to correlate other evidences of GW causes, you don't have data to show that human activities have nothing to do with GW... so why are you still arguing here with me? We're talking about science here, not matter of opinion. If there isn't data to disprove the scientific findings between greenhouse gases and GW, than it should hold true until someone find evidences (pure data) to disprove. Anyone can say anything, that's just opinion. Opinion has no place in science.

If you read my previous posting on Nobel Prize, it's the same, Stalin got nominated by not Gandhi... why? That is a better example than Rush Limbaugh versus Al Gore. Why did the scum Stalin got nominated and not nice guy Gandhi? To snap_pop..., it's not about the character of the person, it's about the fact that they are presenting. Even if George Bush presents this evidence with pure data, I will respect him and nominate him for a Nobel Prize. It's not the person but the fact.

There isn't defeat in science, it's just a matter of evidence. We don't win or lose here. To counter a correlation, use another set of data.

"Prove to me that greenhouse gases are not produced by space aliens."

I thought this comment is pretty childish.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

snap_pop_no_crackle,

So had Stalin but not Gandhi...? You might want to know nomination is based on the issue and not on the character. Mother Teresa got the prize, but because she was nice, but it was her work.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

More evidences from reliable sources (National Science Foundation): http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106972

An explanation how greenhouse gases increase temperature on mother earth (University of Buffalo, coincide with University of Michigan, what a nice coincident): http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/asl/guides/environment/ecochange.html

A little bit education about greenhouse gases from a reliable source: EPA http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

Scientists went all the way to North and South Poles to bore their holes and make these reports. It isn't that kind of opinions that are based on nothing.

The GW skeptics sound very much like when CIA tried to tell the Bush Administration that Saddam wasn't a threat and it fell into deaf ears.

gr, I continuously provide you with data and evidences from very reliable sources (NSF, EPA and Universities publications) that there are relationships between greenhouse gases and GW. But where is your evidence other than making this childish statement: "Prove to me that greenhouse gases are not produced by space aliens."

Tell me, you're joking right? I don't think I have anymore time for you, since you don't argue with data, more like your opinions... in science, opinion is nothing.

Nick Yoho 7 years, 8 months ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

Maybe the earth has a fever. Take two polar ice caps and call me in the morning.

Actually she has a parasite,Humans.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

right_thinker,

Fever doesn't just appear by itself. It must have contacted some kind of disease or got infected. What is the cause? Using medieval theory, it's God's punishment, but modern science will never agree.

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"So you don't have data to disprove that correlation between CO2 and GW" I don't know if there is or isn't. That doesn't answer the question as if humans cause global warming. Neither does your link.

"you don't have data to show that human activities have nothing to do with GW:" "I thought this comment is pretty childish." Yeah, me too. Same as space aliens. You don't comprehend?

"gr, I continuously provide you with data and evidences from very reliable sources" Perhaps reliable, but not relevant. You do provide continuous trivia! However, it doesn't relate to: what factual evidence is there that we are causing global warming?

Do you not understand the question?

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"So you don't know. If you don't know and there isn't any data, why are you still arguing with me?"

So now we know. You like your opinion better than my opinion of space aliens. You have no data to disprove my opinion. That's fine. Just don't call it science or facts.
Science is based on facts. You fail to provide facts of how we cause global warming. You give opinion. Lot's of people have opinion. It doesn't mean it's fact or science.

I see you are terrorist trying to disrupt our economy using your opinion and presenting non-related trivia.

I hope they catch you.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

You've got a lot of studies to do... :P Or maybe I'm wrong, Earth is getting old and unable to regulate its temperature, maybe the National Science Foundation is wrong, maybe the EPA is wrong, maybe Nobel Prize is wrong, maybe all those Universities are all wrong, maybe all the scientists are wrong, maybe David Suzuki is wrong, maybe because I don't agree with you, I'm a terrorist, maybe... maybe....

Ignorance is the key to failure. Knowledge is the key to progress.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 8 months ago

gr,

I thought you might want to write to NSF, EPA and many other Universities, including Nobel Prize Committee members, and even David Suzuki Foundation for their errors and claims on linking human activities with Climate Change. You may even want to cc Al Gore on it and see if you can put him to prison for "fear mongering".

You might want to write to INS about me and ask them to arrest me....

Or you may consider the alternative, by attending classes and travel to the regions that are already affected by global climate change.

Thanks.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.