[bryantms]

I see where you're coming from with the creationism - and we'll leave that alone as it's OT.

When I referred to the tree rings and ice cores, I should have said attributable as they are the result of the input. Here's the results of one study verifying that:

"Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change."

As to whether there is a crisis or not, how do we know that the temperature currently is the ideal temperature? What's wrong with the planet being warmer? The continents used to all be together, now they of course are not. Was it a crisis when they began moving apart?

Edit: Spelling

[lizard]

Originally Posted by bryantms

Here's the results of one study verifying that:

There's that Financial Post again...writing an eye-catching headline, then wanting you to subscribe to read the article.
How Scientific!

Do they ever know their stuff. ..............Ka-Ching!

Hotter temperatures at higher latitudes, a result of global warming, are already forecast by the IPCC.
Hotter temperatures usually means more sun so I can see where someone might conclude that "The sun appears to drive climate change."

Originally Posted by bryantms

As to whether there is a crisis or not, how do we know that the temperature currently is the ideal temperature? What's wrong with the planet being warmer?

Who's arguing about an "ideal" temperature? The way it is now seems pretty comfy to me.
I hear that in the tropics, you sweat buckets from doing nothing. Not Comfy.

I hear that in hotter countries that have grain crops and corn (like North America, but a bit hotter) a large swarm of locusts can eat 80,000 tons of corn in a day. Not Fun.

Originally Posted by bryantms

The continents used to all be together, now they of course are not. Was it a crisis when they began moving apart?

It really was a very big crisis. Nobody ever saw anything like it before. All of humanity was so scared that it waited.

[valis]

again, it's not a crisis for the planet whatsoever. More of a crisis for the creatures LIVING on said planet. Species have risen and fallen over the course of the life of the earth; what drives that, nobody knows for sure, but I am pretty certain that anything on the scale of a global rise in temps of about 5 degrees will do significant damage to the flora/fauna that are currently on it.

the ecological system is a pretty complex one, perhaps as complex as the weather. The old saw states that a butterfly flaps it's wings in China and a tornado hits Kansas. Anyone who has ever seen kudzu will know that the introduction of a species that has no known predators will allow that species to completely overtake the area. Imagine if the rising temps killed off half the plant population, or the plant population evolved to where their byproduct was no longer oxygen. In either case, obviously all oxygen breathing creatures would be forced to change their intake system or be passed over in the great cycle of life.

The effects of global warming are what scientists are scrambling to study by retrieving the ice cores and the tree rings and the buried peat moss.....there is no doubt that the planet is warming; the question now becomes how much WILL it warm, and what effect will it have?

v

[valis]

Originally Posted by lizard

All of humanity was so scared that it waited.

okay, that made me laugh out loud....

[lizard]

Originally Posted by valis

okay, that made me laugh out loud....

[bryantms]

Originally Posted by lizard

It really was a very big crisis. Nobody ever saw anything like it before. All of humanity was so scared that it waited.

If you like taking something out of context...

What this means is that it wasn't a crisis. The planet moved on. Plant and animal life adapted to the different regions of the world as they moved apart over time. Obviously they weren't writing about this in the NY Times. I believe global warming is the same way. Nature will move on. (And for the record, we are a part of nature.)

Let's look at a few things that have been blamed on global warming:

Costa Rican Frog Die-Offs
Australian cockroach migration
Swedish beetle-infestation
Great Britain's puffin decline
A rise in hay fever
Staff shortages at Bulgarian brothels
Deadly serious outbreaks of Malaria, Dengue Fever, West Nile Virus and Cholera
The killer Indian Ocean tsunami
Even the Lake Tahoe wildfires

Do me a favor and check all those links - I'm sure they'll work. Do you honestly think global warming has caused all of these things? That's an honest question in which I'm looking forward to hearing an honest response. Global warming has been around since the early 90's. Where is this impending doom that they are all talking about? This travesty has become nothing but a method for people to cash in. There is no way that anyone can say, that without a doubt, global warming cause all of these things. Wise up!

If you want to read a real article - one that does its research and is well documented -check this out.

The author of that article is described as follows:

Dr. D. Bruce Merrifield is a former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs and Professor Emeritus of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He holds Masters and Doctoral degrees in physical organic chemistry and currently is a member of the Visiting Committee for Physical Sciences at the University of Chicago.

Want more? Here's a recent Discover article.

No matter what you think, global warming is not "truth".

Edit: Spelling

Edit2: I just couldn't leave this out. Did you know that global warming is also the cause of the violence in Darfur?

"The violence in Darfur is usually attributed to ethnic hatred. But global warming may be primarily to blame."

Talk about an assault on reason. I'm sorry, but if you believe that, you're a lost cause.

[valis]

Originally Posted by bryantms

If you like taking something out of context...

What this means is that it wasn't a crisis. The planet moved on. Plant and animal life adapted to the different regions of the world as they moved apart over time. Obviously they weren't writing about this in the NY Times. I believe global warming is the same way. Nature will move on. (And for the record, we are a part of nature.)

well, you are getting part of it right. Both flora and fauna adapted accordingly; but you are missing some of the picture. The flora/fauna that DIDN'T adapt, went extinct. End of story.

Global warming is most definitely cyclical. However, at this stage there are a few things that haven't happened before. CO2 is at the highest it's been a several hundred thousand, if not millions, of years. Some of it is our fault. A lot comes from the oceans, and a lot from volcanoes.

But the fact remains; CO2 is at extremely high levels, higher than any in quite some time. The question is not whether global warming is happening, as it quite obviously is. The question isn't what can we do to stop it, because there isn't anything. We can curb our emissions all we want, the globe is still going to heat up. The question then becomes how are WE, as a species, going to adapt to it?

I wouldn't be surprised if global warming played a part in the majority of your links; certainly not the tsunami, that was earthquake caused, but I'll guarantee you that contributed to the CO2 levels. ANY ecology is a vastly complex entity; one minor change can have catastrophic results somewhere down the line, something not predicted simply because there is no WAY to predict it. One can guess, but there's a reason that you generally don't see anything forecast in the weather more than 5 or 10 days out; we just can't model it further than that, as it's too complex. Toss in an increase globally of even 1 degree, and you are looking at a vastly different ecosystem.

I think you are wrong in understating the effects that global warming will have; I think they will be severe in the long run, but there is simply no way to tell how long that run will be. It could be in my lifetime, or it could be in my son's lifetime. But something is going to tip over, one way or the other. You've got desalinization of the North Atlantic Current, which could either continue to bring warmer temperatures to Europe, or, due to the desalination, raise the freezing level of the seawater enough so that is begins to form another ice sheet, which in turn increases the albedo, and then we face global cooling.

Bottom line, we are along for the ride. And it will be an interesting one.

[bryantms]

Bottom line, we are along for the ride. And it will be an interesting one.

I couldn't agree more. Whether we believe that global warming is the "crisis" that some believe it to be is irrelevant. Like you said, we are just along for the ride. If everyone drove hybrid cars tomorrow, it wouldn't change anything. That's why I'm not a big fan of those in power trying to implement more restrictions in the form of cap-and-trade systems, which has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. If we start putting restrictions on ourselves, we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot because you can bet India and China won't do that to themselves.

[valis]

it doesn't matter if india or china do anything. We owe to ourselves and to our children to do what we can, and that includes not driving an SUV unless you are doing some four wheeling. That also includes watching our effect on the ecosystem via clear-cutting, waste disposal, basically every action we make that interacts on a large scale with the environment.. Because any change on that scale will be significant at some point down the line. We know what we do, but we don't really have a handle yet on what to do with the unexpected results, such as that quake in Japan. That dumped a bit of radioactive waste into the ocean, and we will probably never know how much. But the point is that our technology got us there, but didn't properly safeguard it, so now there are unexpected consequences. Surely if we have the technology to split the atom we have the technology to adequately contain it.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by bryantms

I believe global warming is the same way. Nature will move on. (And for the record, we are a part of nature.)

But it will affect the poor and shift the balance of power.

Originally Posted by bryantms

Let's look at a few things that have been blamed on global warming:

Costa Rican Frog Die-Offs
Australian cockroach migration
Swedish beetle-infestation
Great Britain's puffin decline
A rise in hay fever
Staff shortages at Bulgarian brothels
Deadly serious outbreaks of Malaria, Dengue Fever, West Nile Virus and Cholera
The killer Indian Ocean tsunami
Even the Lake Tahoe wildfires

Do me a favor and check all those links - I'm sure they'll work. Do you honestly think global warming has caused all of these things?

Xico has a part of his sig that warns about that, somewhat: "One falsehood spoils a thousand truths" - a sig which could be used to discredit many of Xico's own posts.

Just because the proponents of Global Warming blame everything on it doesn't necessarily mean that they lie about everything. Don't let the falsehoods the Global Warming crowd tells prevent you from seeing the truths present in their other arguments.

Originally Posted by bryantms

Where is this impending doom that they are all talking about?

More ignorance on "their" part - using a doomsday-type scare tactic. There will be no "doomsday" - more likely, a "grey-day" - a slow, barely noticeable change(like the sinking of Venice) rather than an overnight catastrophy of the type favored by Hollywood.

Originally Posted by bryantms

No matter what you think, global warming is not "truth".

I wouldn't go that far - the problem with pathological liars is that they have to tell at least some truth in order for people to believe that anything they say has any shred of truth to it. So just because people tell lies about global warming doesn't mean you're free of any obligation to investigate the possible truth of global warming.

[bryantms]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Xico has a part of his sig that warns about that, somewhat: "One falsehood spoils a thousand truths" - a sig which could be used to discredit many of Xico's own posts.

I would tend to agree with that statement. The point I'm trying to make is that it's getting to the point where you can't find any news piece that isn't caused by global warming. I show this with the ridiculousness of some of the links above. (Bulgarian brothel staff shortages?) For a science that is in no way settled - and those who believe otherwise must not know how to read because there are countless articles and papers refuting the science out there - there are a lot of misguided people.

I wouldn't go that far - the problem with pathological liars is that they have to tell at least some truth in order for people to believe that anything they say has any shred of truth to it. So just because people tell lies about global warming doesn't mean you're free of any obligation to investigate the possible truth of global warming.

What would any reasonable person believe if they knew at least half of what they were being told was lies? Hmm? Maybe they'd think, "Well what about the other half?"

The problem with pathological liars is that they tell so many lies! Consequently, this forces other people into disbelief at everything they say.

Lastly, I'll mention Al Gore's testimony before Congress. I give him props for taking a cause he believes in to the U.S. Congress and touting it so strongly. I lose all respect when he dodges every thinking question by saying, "The science is settled." Where was his undisputed proof then? Why couldn't he offer up his evidence into the record?

If I were him, and I was going to base my career on global warming, as Al Gore has done, I would know the information in and out. I would have notes and charts and graphs to present that would at least provide information to the members of Congress showing why I believe as I do.

At least it'd be better than the hogwash that is, "The science is settled."

[bryantms]

Originally Posted by valis

it doesn't matter if india or china do anything. We owe to ourselves and to our children to do what we can, and that includes not driving an SUV unless you are doing some four wheeling. That also includes watching our effect on the ecosystem via clear-cutting, waste disposal, basically every action we make that interacts on a large scale with the environment.. Because any change on that scale will be significant at some point down the line. We know what we do, but we don't really have a handle yet on what to do with the unexpected results, such as that quake in Japan. That dumped a bit of radioactive waste into the ocean, and we will probably never know how much. But the point is that our technology got us there, but didn't properly safeguard it, so now there are unexpected consequences. Surely if we have the technology to split the atom we have the technology to adequately contain it.

China builds a new coal powered plant at least once a week. They just passed the United States in greenhouse gas emissions. We can do all we want, but as China grows, we're only hurting ourselves.

Let's look at this economically. China can build something with far fewer restrictions than in the United States, which consequently makes it cheaper. Thus, businesses that can achieve this goal move factories to China. If the United States begins imposing stronger regulations on its businesses (and people), they will either be forced to raise costs in order to meet these goals, or move to China. If they raise costs, they are no longer competitive. If they move to China, the US loses all those jobs.

The Kyoto Protocol didn't even include developing countries like China and India, and its goal was to lower the global temperature by 1 degree Celsius over 100 years. Are you kidding me? We can try to be green all we want, but it won't help.

You can have fun driving a hybrid vehicle. I'll drive my SUV and be much safer and more comfortable. You can use fluorescent light bulbs all you want. Just don't come bitching to me when you hear about the mercury spills in landfills as they weren't disposed of properly. You can buy your Carbon Credits all you want. I'll spend my money on something that actually means something.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by bryantms

I would tend to agree with that statement. The point I'm trying to make is that it's getting to the point where you can't find any news piece that isn't caused by global warming. I show this with the ridiculousness of some of the links above. (Bulgarian brothel staff shortages?) For a science that is in no way settled - and those who believe otherwise must not know how to read because there are countless articles and papers refuting the science out there - there are a lot of misguided people.



What would any reasonable person believe if they knew at least half of what they were being told was lies? Hmm? Maybe they'd think, "Well what about the other half?"

That's a good point. The only problem is that it doesn't always work. When you want to know the truth, you have to look at all claims independently. You might be satisfied with being a "reasonable person", but I'm more interested in the truth.

The problem with pathological liars is that they tell so many lies! Consequently, this forces other people into disbelief at everything they say.

That's another good point. But I'd still say focus on the message rather than the speaker. Diescrediting the speaker is a legal tactic that seeks to win the argument more than it seeks to find the truth.

Lastly, I'll mention Al Gore's testimony before Congress. I give him props for taking a cause he believes in to the U.S. Congress and touting it so strongly. I lose all respect when he dodges every thinking question by saying, "The science is settled." Where was his undisputed proof then? Why couldn't he offer up his evidence into the record?

Oftentimes arrogance is indistinguishable from "confidence". You'll see that at TSG after you've been here a while.

If I were him, and I was going to base my career on global warming, as Al Gore has done, I would know the information in and out. I would have notes and charts and graphs to present that would at least provide information to the members of Congress showing why I believe as I do.

At least it'd be better than the hogwash that is, "The science is settled."

You seem like an intelligent guy. So I'm guessing that you already know that's not how politics(or media, or job interviews, or dating, or .......) works - it's not about being correct - correctness is the realm of science, not politics. If you told the truth, no one would vote for you. The truth is too boring. It requires some embellishment. Some scare tactics. Some ....... "confidence" ....

If I were him, and I was going to base my career on global warming, as Al Gore has done, I would know the information in and out. I would have notes and charts and graphs to present that would at least provide information to the members of Congress showing why I believe as I do.

He doesn't need it. Just like he doesn't need charts to say that George Bush is "dumb". Certain things are accepted as truth regardless of their actual truth content. So it makes sense for him to not beat a dead horse, and instead focus on the best way to profit from his "truth".

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by bryantms

China builds a new coal powered plant at least once a week. They just passed the United States in greenhouse gas emissions. We can do all we want, but as China grows, we're only hurting ourselves.

Tragedy of the Commons

Let's look at this economically. China can build something with far fewer restrictions than in the United States, which consequently makes it cheaper. Thus, businesses that can achieve this goal move factories to China. If the United States begins imposing stronger regulations on its businesses (and people), they will either be forced to raise costs in order to meet these goals, or move to China. If they raise costs, they are no longer competitive. If they move to China, the US loses all those jobs.

The Kyoto Protocol didn't even include developing countries like China and India, and its goal was to lower the global temperature by 1 degree Celsius over 100 years. Are you kidding me? We can try to be green all we want, but it won't help.

You can have fun driving a hybrid vehicle. I'll drive my SUV and be much safer and more comfortable. You can use fluorescent light bulbs all you want. Just don't come bitching to me when you hear about the mercury spills in landfills as they weren't disposed of properly. You can buy your Carbon Credits all you want. I'll spend my money on something that actually means something.

I'm all for making China a new scapegoat for Global Warming. We need to find a way to sell that message though. China currently has the excuse of being a "developing" economy. That'll be hard to overcome.

Oh, and SUV's aren't really known for their safety record. Want safety and comfort? Buy a Volvo. Even Volvo's own station-wagons are safer than their own SUVs

[bryantms]

I wouldn't say I'm scapegoating China as much as using them to justify why we shouldn't be imposing cap and trade laws as Australia just has, or taxing citizens for energy use. And you're right, it will be incredibly difficult to overcome the "developing" label.

You make quite a few good points BanditFlyer, and you certainly represent civilized debate well. I may just have to look into Volvos in the future!