There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[billvon 2,396]

>The current head of NOAA stated last week that (and I paraphrase)
> Global warning is one of the biggest hoax's every put on the
> American people.

Uh, no. He claimed there was no link between hurricane intensity and global warming. He did not claim climate change was a hoax. (You need only look out the window in Alaska to know that statement is false.)

In any case, the scientists at NOAA believe that climate change is a serious problem. Lautenbacher has tried to muzzle them on occasion, but by and large they are still able to do their work - and it indicates that the planet is warming, and that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary reason.

>My position is that GW is a part of the natural cycle of nature.

Of course it is! It's warmed before; it will warm again. The question that presents itself now is - do we want to force one of those cycles to happen right now, over the next century, instead of over the next 50,000 years?

(BTW if you really believe that, why do you state "global warming stopped in 1998?")

>Mans activites are not significant enough to have an effect one way
>or another and I belive it is arogant to think otherwise.

We have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 50%. It is not sane to believe otherwise; the measurements prove it, and they match what we would expect by burning that amount of coal and oil. CO2 is a major greenhouse gas. No serious scientist believes that increasing CO2 cannot have any effect on the climate. The only question remaining is how much affect it will have.

[rushmc 18]

I must not be sane so so be it (IYO)

>No serious scientist believes that increasing CO2 cannot have any effect on the climate

These are the very types of statements that make my BS flag start waving. There are many "serious scientists" that do not agree. Having that opinion gets them the "not credible" tag from you and those that do not agree with thier positions. I post a site they put info on and the attacks began.

Normal liberal tactics (not you in this instance)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,396]

>?There are many "serious scientists" that do not agree.

Post just one.

[rushmc 18]

Just do a Google search Myth of Global Warming 2006 Research.

Here is one for you to start on

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

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,396]

>Here is one for you to start on

It states the exact opposite of your statement above.

"Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature . . ."

So they DO think that increasing CO2 concentrations causes warmer temps. Try again!

[rushmc 18]

I sent you what I considered to be honest information. And yes, they did speak of CO2 gases but they also said they are not sure which is having the greatest effect. My biggest point of sending you that site was that GW is not an unarguable theory.....

Go to www.cfact.org for more one sided info

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royd 0]

Quote

The list goes on. And lastly, those lazy people who "just want grant money" aren't "replanting" rainforests because they're still fighting to stop DEforestation AND they know you can't replace the rainforest! Replanting, like what's done in the forestry industry typically results in a monoculture forest which is incapable of sustaining the ecological diversity that the original old growth sustained.

This is typical liberal mentality. We will throw up roadblocks, but we won't actually do anything to stop the problem.
If I had the kind of money you people look for, I'd have nurseries set up to put the diversity back into the land, instead of just throwing up my hands and saying it can't be done. If we can spend billions on the space program to see if there's water on Mars, which, BTW, will never do us a lick of good, we could surely figure out how to reforest a few million acres of jungle. After all, it is a renewable resource.
BTW, I have personally planted several thousand seedlings.
Step 1. shove a shovel into the ground.

Step2. move the shovel back and forth to form a hole

Step3 Place seedling in hole

Step4 tamp dirt around seedling with foot. End of process.

Come on Boys. Less talkee, more workee.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

The list goes on. And lastly, those lazy people who "just want grant money" aren't "replanting" rainforests because they're still fighting to stop DEforestation AND they know you can't replace the rainforest! Replanting, like what's done in the forestry industry typically results in a monoculture forest which is incapable of sustaining the ecological diversity that the original old growth sustained.

This is typical liberal mentality. We will throw up roadblocks, but we won't actually do anything to stop the problem.....

What are you talking about? I never said anything about giving up on anything. Sure, planting trees is a great idea in those areas that have already been clear cut. But that doesn't mean that we're supposed to continue to clear cut. Do you have any idea how many euphemisms that the Bush administration has for logging? I think it's close to 30! Conservation and prevention is not "throwing your hands in the air".

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I sent you what I considered to be honest information. And yes, they did speak of CO2 gases but they also said they are not sure which is having the greatest effect. My biggest point of sending you that site was that GW is not an unarguable theory.....

Go to www.cfact.org for more one sided info

From your article:
"He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes..."

and

"While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant,"

They're talking about increased radiation being a possible CONTRIBUTOR, not THE REASON. Why are we playing the mutually exclusive game? Is this a "with us or against us" thing?

[billvon 2,396]

>I sent you what I considered to be honest information.

That's great! But it said the opposite of what you claimed it did. (If that's true of most of your sources, you might discover you believe in climate change anyway!)

>My biggest point of sending you that site was that GW is not an
>unarguable theory.....

No one disputes that the planet is warming up. Even you admit it on occasion (see above where you said "GW is part of nature.") Also, no scientist disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that we have increased its percentage in the atmosphere. Arguing against those things is like arguing the earth isn't round.

Now, once you get into questions of what the effects will be, or what might mitigate its effects, or what _else_ is causing the planet to heat up, you may find a scientist to support your preconceptions.

Overall you are going to get zero traction with the idea that global warming doesn't exist. People can look out the window and realize you're wrong. If you want a more credible approach, consider one of the following:

- the "Greening Earth" approach, where lobbyists claim that the increase in temperatures (and the resulting changes in climate and sea level) will be good for everyone. Chris de Freitas is a big proponent of this. Hey, warmer temperatures mean warmer winters and longer growing seasons, right?

- the "it's not really going to change anything" approach, championed by Bjorn Lomberg. (Warning - he recently fell foul of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for ‘misrepresenting or misinterpreting’ the scientific studies of others.)

- the "doing anything about climate change will make you poor" approach. Check out Ross McKitrick for some stuff on this. Basically climate change exists, and it will cause a few problems, but we're better off paying for them later than stopping/ameliorating the problem now.

It's true that if you take one of the above approaches you basically have to admit that climate change is happening and we had something to do with it, but you will be able to find many more web references to support your new position.

>Go to www.cfact.org for more one sided info

I'd recommend less one-sided info and more objective infomation if you want to really understand what's happening.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Overall you are going to get zero traction with the idea that global warming doesn't exist.

I think his position is that warming may very well be occurring, just not that mankind is "THE" main contributor vs the oceans, the forests, sun, the earth's core, etc

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

Dammit bill

for the umpteenth time. I do not dispute the earth is warming.

I do not agree that man has any major effect of that fact one way or another. I have said that many times on this site.

And once again the source is trashed because the content in not believed. Perdictable....

Oh, and I, just as you do, think I have an understanding of what is happening. We just happen to disagree.

This is not an environmental issue (imo) it is a political one. Not the greed side and polution side of it either............

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>Overall you are going to get zero traction with the idea that global warming doesn't exist.

I think his position is that warming may very well be occurring, just not that mankind is "THE" main contributor vs the oceans, the forests, sun, the earth's core, etc

But he wrote very clearly "it stopped in 1998".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,396]

>I think his position is that warming may very well be occurring, just
>not that mankind is "THE" main contributor vs the oceans, the
>forests, sun, the earth's core, etc

That's another angle to take, but is at odds with the statement that "global warming stopped in 1998." (BTW of the things you listed above, about the only one I have seen proposed by even the fringe groups is solar output.)

[billvon 2,396]

>I do not dispute the earth is warming.

So your statement "it stopped in 1998" was incorrect? Fine, but it's difficult to discuss a phenomena like this if you keep changing your position on it.

>And once again the source is trashed because the content in not believed.

Uh, you were the one who said it was one-sided. Are you disagreeing with yourself?

>This is not an environmental issue (imo) it is a political one.

Ah, see, that's where we differ. You see the politics, I see the science. I agree that many people from both parties use climate change for their own purposes.

[rushmc 18]

More to debunk the "most scientists agree" retoric...

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000031.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1131275.stm

http://spacescience.com/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

More to debunk the "most scientists agree" retoric...

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000031.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1131275.stm

http://spacescience.com/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm

I read that more as "several scientists disagree" rather than a rebuttal of "most scientists agree". I think there's little doubt that most scientists agree, and a fairly small minority that disagree.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>(BTW of the things you listed above, about the only one I have seen proposed by even the fringe groups is solar output.)

So let me see if I can play the game too.

Here goes: I think a lot of non-"fringe" scientists would deny your claim that the ocean doesn't produce any carbon dioxide and oxygen.

Did you really take any science classes as a youth? Or just read pamphlets by left wing fringe groups secretly run by the NSA looking for donations to fight global warming as a distraction to black ops going on over the Andes. (that would the candy mints, not the mountains)

{I can see how satisfying that is - just obnoxiousness without any content - I blame Jimmy Carter, he's got us all on edge.}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But he wrote very clearly "it stopped in 1998".

But that depends on the what the definition of "it" is, now doesn't 'it'.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,396]

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000031.html

That one is a petition that says "we do not agree that CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic warming of the earth." I agree with their statement. It may cause a catastrophe, but it is not guaranteed to. But they do not dispute that CO2 can cause warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/...sci/tech/1131275.stm

In this one, the primary argument is that they consider the ocean temperature rise to be exaggerated by 40%. But they do not dispute that CO2 can cause warming.

http://spacescience.com/...ok/essd13aug98_1.htm

You should change this link. They've solved the problem of the erroneous satellite readings. (Note the date on the link.)

I think the problem you're having here is that you want the political outcome of 'beating the liberals' by proving climate change is wrong. But that leads you to make contradictory statements (like "global warming stopped in 1998" and "of course it's occurring but it's natural") which can result in people taking you less seriously.

A suggestion - if you want a certain political outcome, don't get too far into the science of the issue. Just go after the politics.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

But he wrote very clearly "it stopped in 1998".

But that depends on the what the definition of "it" is, now doesn't 'it'.

You may have trouble, but I know what IT is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I do not dispute the earth is warming.

So your statement "it stopped in 1998" was incorrect? Fine, but it's difficult to discuss a phenomena like this if you keep changing your position on it.

>And once again the source is trashed because the content in not believed.

Uh, you were the one who said it was one-sided. Are you disagreeing with yourself?

>This is not an environmental issue (imo) it is a political one.

Ah, see, that's where we differ. You see the politics, I see the science. I agree that many people from both parties use climate change for their own purposes.

You are correct that my tittle to this thread is missleading when compared to my opinion. And you are right, the site I posted is more one sided but, are not your references leaning more to your point of view?

As for the unlying current to the topic of GW you and I will have to agree to disagree.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

So over 5000 is a small number of scientists in your opinion? (per the first source)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

>I think the problem you're having here is that you want the political outcome of 'beating the liberals' by proving climate change is wrong. But that leads you to make contradictory statements (like "global warming stopped in 1998" and "of course it's occurring but it's natural") which can result in people taking you less seriously.

Not true. If I believed that catostrophic GW was being caused by human actions I would be on board. I think that most of the theory is coming from bad science and incomplete models.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

So over 5000 is a small number of scientists in your opinion? (per the first source)

What % of the world's scientists does that represent? There are around 5,000 scientists working in the Chicago area alone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.