New Anti-global warming debate?

[pixelsmith]

Why would ANYONE think that human industrial activity might have a harmful effect on this planet?

The sooner humans go extinct, the better. Seriously, as a species, we're beyond screwed. A virus with shoes, as Bill Hicks one said. And not worthy of this gorgeous planet and all it holds. Violent, stupid monkeys that don't understand the meaning of enough. No worries, the planet will have the final say, as did I in this thread.

dB

Why does dB have to always lock threads he disagrees with? Am I the only one who thinks this is BS?
Yes it is partly his forum but c'mon... :frown:

Humans and our good Or bad contributions to this planet are just as natural as anything else on this rock. We are just as worthy to be here as anything else. YES we need to address a few things such as pollution, ocean degradation, poverty, etc.. We havent been around long enough to know wtf we are doing, but we will, we are learning.

If some people think humans are as bad as dB says then they are welcome to step and and do the right thing. Even viruses have a right to be here. They serve their purpose as well.

David no one is arguing that we can't do more to reduce human impact on this planet. But doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons could do more damage than it will prevent. This planet has survived FAR worse than humans. To think it can't solve this problem on its own is a bit near sighted. ie: Haiti earthquake, recent tsunami, Pompeii, and the big one coming, the Yellowstone eruption...etc.

Humans will come and go in time. We are no different than all of the other amazing life forms that have gone extinct before us.

Can we PLEASE have threads that dB does not agree with?!

I think we can have a anti global warming thread with some very interesting and enlightening dialogue.

Science is not based on a consensus, it is partly based on skepticism and should include the scientific method. Current positions from the AGW supporters include neither.

I think this is an important issue and the debate should never be over, or locked, unless forum rules are not followed.

 

[David Biedny]

Sorry, pixel, I'm in a very bad mood today, and am being reactive. I'll leave this thread alone. But please, get real, it's not as if I delete ALL threads that piss me off - just some of them.

 

[Schuyler]

The thing is, we just had a lengthy thread on this where most all points to bring up were brought up. If nothing else, the new thread shows that we NEVER GET ANYWHERE on any subject, and that's pretty disheartening.

 

[pixelsmith]

I disagree with dB and Schuyler. New information and data comes in all the time. To close this debate is closed minded.

 

[bobheck]

Why does dB have to always lock threads he disagrees with?

David seems kind of 'put out' more so than usual lately.

The sooner humans go extinct, the better. Seriously, as a species, we're beyond screwed. A virus with shoes, as Bill Hicks one said. And not worthy of this gorgeous planet and all it holds. Violent, stupid monkeys that don't understand the meaning of enough.

That is a pretty strong statement, and it worries me. I truly hope every is ok with him. He may just be burned out, reading a lot of the drivel on these boards, too. I know I walked away from them for quite a while.

As a species we are still in a tribal warfare stage, to be sure. We are using a vast amount of our resources and energy to build and maintain bigger and better sticks and stones. But, hey, we also have art, culture, hospitals, medicine, religion. We ARE trying and at least on some fronts are making progress. I don't know where it is all going, but I really don't think that the sooner we are extinct the better. I am not that cynical. I think we have a chance in the future to finally rise above and start to actually progress as a species. The earth will still outlast us and survive until the sun goes nova.

 

[Schuyler]

Very well, but I'm tired of it. I have laid out my position, including supportive data, in the last thread: Why is Global Warming a Hoax??

 

[pixelsmith]

I will happily take over for you Schuyler. Right now, I think we need to factor in all the latest "dirt" coming out about the UNs IPCC, its chairman, its scientists and the media that has covered their tracks for way too long. This subject goes FAR deeper down the rabbit hole than most are willing to follow it... except me and a few others here on this forum.

 

[jkoci]

Very well, but I'm tired of it. I have laid out my position, including supportive data, in the last thread[/url]

Same here. I will sit this one out too. However, for those who wish to continue this unending cycle of point and counter please have respect for other people opinions and keep an open mind. It seems some of us get a little to out of control with this issue. Some people on both sides of the issue can be dogmatic, close minded, and just wrong siting bad information from questionable sources.

With all that said, I found these recent articles interesting and for now it will be my last contributions to this ongoing discussion.

The First Rule of Fighting Climate Change: Dont Talk About Climate Change | Mother Jones

The real holes in climate science : Nature News

Box: Enduring climate myths The real holes in climate science: Nature News

And if the debate is over then somebody needs to tell the shareholders of these companies. The last link is dates 1/21/10.

United States Climate Action Partnership

ClimateAd.org

 

[pixelsmith]

Same here. I will sit this one out too. However, for those who wish to continue this unending cycle of point and counter please have respect for other people opinions and keep an open mind. It seems some of us get a little to out of control with this issue.

It will not be unending much longer. The whole AGW theory is pretty much dead. That is why the new bad guy is Ocean Acidification, which I would gladly debate as well.

 

[conor]

I disagree with dB and Schuyler. New information and data comes in all the time. To close this debate is closed minded.

Without going into the details of the debate (I'm pretty sure most of you know my stance on it!) this is something that I feel really strongly about, and judging by the reactions that it brings out of people (on both sides of the argument) there are obviously a lot of people who feel strongly about it too. We may be getting nowhere, but does that not show that it is a debate worth having?

 

[Jonah]

I'll bite...

I say there is plenty of scientific evidence that supports the fact that CO2 plays a significant role, which can be proven historically, in the climate of the Earth. This is a demonstrated scientific fact. I'll also take the position that humanities use of fossil fuels and through the act of deforestation, creates an unnatural release (de-sequestration) of CO2 and that the changes we are seeing in Earth's climate is most likely a direct result of that additional CO2 being released. The carbon cycle is demonstrably proven and is absolutely connected to the acidification of the oceans. the two issues are inseparable scientifically.

I will provide two important links to start with, one a paper, the other a video presentation. I would be interested in rebuttals against the science behind these two positions, arrived at separately by two different scientist. Hopefully, consideration of the work of these two individuals will honestly attempted in any rebuttals to the position I've taken.

The first is Peter D. Wards 'Impact from the Deep', first published in Scientific American, October 2006

PETER D. WARD is a professor in the University of Washington’s biology department and its earth and space sciences division, where he investigates both realms. His terrestrial research centers on ancient mass extinction events as well as the evolution and ultimate extinction of the nautiluslike marine animals known as ammonites, which he described in his first article for Scientific American in October 1983. Ward also applies principles gleaned from studying the earth’s earliest life-forms to research for the NASA Astrobiology Institute into potential habitats for life elsewhere. He discussed those environments in an October 2001 Scientific American article, “Refuges for Life in a Hostile Universe,” written with Guillermo Gonzalez and Donald Brownlee, as well as in a popular book co-authored with Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is So Uncommon in the Universe (Springer, 2000).

The second if a link to a presentation given in December at the fall meeting of the American Geophysicist Union, given by Dr. Richard B. Alley of Penn State.

The Biggest Control Knob -Carbon Dioxide in Earths Climate History

This where I would start in backing up my assertion that CO2 plays a more than significant role in regulating Earths climate. If we are to honestly debate, then I would expect a rebuttal to include scientific evidence that disproves my assertion to be of hopefully of similar quality. A blog link to WUWT ain't gonna cut it.

Any takers or is this position a given and conceded?

 

[pixelsmith]

Jonah I suggest getting some CURRENT information. AGW theory is dead. I will try to check out your OLD information later today. In the mean time I suggest you read a few links here. You will find plenty of information on how data has been manipulation by nearly all agencies and scientists involved in the hoax. Climate Depot

 

[Jonah]

Jonah I suggest getting some CURRENT information. AGW theory is dead. I will try to check out your OLD information later today. In the mean time I suggest you read a few links here. You will find plenty of information on how data has been manipulation by nearly all agencies and scientists involved in the hoax. Climate Depot

Pixelsmith,

The lecture given by Dr. Alley at the December meeting of the American Geophysical Union is as current as it gets, and it is science. As was the award given to him by the AGU just prior to his presentation. As I said, I expect you to provide, if we are to truly debate AGW, a peer-reviewed scientific study that refutes the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore, a regulator of Earth's climate. And although you didn't post a link to WUWT, a link to "Climate Depot" sucks just as bad, IMHO. It is also a tactic of the denialist to try to deflect direct questions through ad hom type "I suggest you get some CURRENT information" redirection.

So I again will ask the question...is anybody arguing against the scientific theory that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to climate alterations? If indeed you do wish to dispute this proven fact, again, please provide a peer-reviewed paper that might call this into question through the use of scientific methods so that I may continue my education on this subject and possibly rethink my position on the subject.

Here's a bit on how it works, scientifically.

Energy and the Environment - Greenhouse Gases Explained- US DOE

 

[pixelsmith]

No one i know of is disputing the "greenhouse effect". Your diagram is fairly accurate except the trapping heat part. The atmosphere does not trap heat. CO2 does have a slight warming effect up to i think around 20ppm. After that there is a diminishing return. A doubling of CO2 does not double the heat.

 

[Jonah]

No one i know of is disputing the "greenhouse effect". Your diagram is fairly accurate except the trapping heat part. The atmosphere does not trap heat. CO2 does have a slight warming effect up to i think around 20ppm. After that there is a diminishing return. A doubling of CO2 does not double the heat.

Lets define "Atmosphere" so that we're all on the same page, ok? I'll use one of the definition's provided by Princetons Wordnet that I think best describes the meaning in the context of our discussion.

atmosphere (the envelope of gases surrounding any celestial body)

WordNet Search - 3.0

If you are talking of something different than that, please provide your own definition. Also, as we are still developing a common framework of understanding, we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves with any suppositions on "diminishing returns" wrt CO2 and heat trapping. But we'll get there...

I'm pleased that we can agree on the fact that the Greenhouse Effect exist in scientific reality and is not disputed here.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Jonah, what do you believe would be the economic impact of taking the required steps to remedy the global warming trends you believe are caused by man? Have you seen this rigorously assessed and quantified by someone in the Global Warming camp? There is a 1.5 hr. presentation on YouTube by Lord Monckton, who argues that we would get very little 'bang for our buck' (i.e., de minimis improvement in CO2 levels and a drastic impact on the global economy) -- assuming man is the principal cause of the problem. Unfortunately, the economic impact would hurt the world's poor, and perhaps the largest driver of pollution on the local level is in fact poverty (witness Mexico City).

I think the last thing we all would want to see is the world's poor disproportionately suffer, especially if the steps taken to remedy a (wrongly perceived?) problem only led to a marginal improvement in that underlying problem.

 

[bobheck]

Finally found some of these after some searching the web.

“Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?

“Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.

“That virus is a pussycat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943


So much for scientific accuracy in predicting.

I remember well being scared to death by the first one in school. Even before 1975 in grade school we were being told that we were heading for another glacial period. Now we are warming.

Global warming is primarily all natural, IMHO, and all the hype is bullshit to get government funding and tighten control. The entire damned solar system is warming, not just earth. The polar caps on Mars are melting.

You wanna talk about pollution and clean air and such, I'm right there with you. You throw in global warming, you'll be talking to yourself.

 

[Jonah]

Tom,

I have no idea what to do about AGW. In this thread, it seems the position of most is that climate change is not occurring, or if it is, it is happening naturally. That is what I'm focusing on( at the moment).


Bob,

I appreciate the argument that science is falliible, to a point. I also appreacite your acknowledgment that the climate is changing. Your point wrt the entire solar system is warming is well taken, however, if you could point me to the science that determines this, I would be most thankful. Even if I give you your point, I would ask you a question. If your house is on fire, do you throw fuel on it or do you attempt to put it out?

Pixelsmith,

Since you had the wherewithal to thank the two post above this, I'll assume that you agree with my proposed definition of "atmosphere". Thanks. We can now move forward with a few givens, the Greenhouse Effect is a fact of science, the atmosphere is composed of gases and, it seems, Global warming is a fact (if you agree with Bob).

We'll be moving on to the science of carbon, it's properties and it's sequestration cycle next time I get a moment.

 

[bobheck]

If your house is on fire, do you throw fuel on it or do you attempt to put it out?

Not a good analogy. A house burning is not a natural cycle. The earth warming and cooling is. You do nothing.

Humans will gradually move from regions that are changing from hospitable to inhospitable, to regions that are growing from inhospitable to hospitable because of the warming -- naturally.

Then, many years later, the earth will cool again (just as it always has) and populations will shift.

That really is all there is to it.

The earth is warming. We are still in an ice age, coming off of a peak glacial period 18,000 years ago. It will warm, then cool, then warm, then cool... All happened many times before without our help. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Your point wrt the entire solar system is warming is well taken, however, if you could point me to the science that determines this, I would be most thankful.

Mars Odyssey: Newsroom

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find

Pluto thought to be warming up. 26/07/2006. ABC News Online

Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter : Abstract : Nature


With that, I am bowing out. This is a religious debate. I agree the earth may be warming, but I say big deal. We also may be headed for another glacial period. In any event, these things happen slowly. None of us will actually notice it in our lifetime. So relax. Other things to worry about and occupy our time.

 

[pixelsmith]

Tom,

I have no idea what to do about AGW. In this thread, it seems the position of most is that climate change is not occurring, or if it is, it is happening naturally. That is what I'm focusing on( at the moment).

Bob,

I appreciate the argument that science is falliible, to a point. I also appreacite your acknowledgment that the climate is changing. Your point wrt the entire solar system is warming is well taken, however, if you could point me to the science that determines this, I would be most thankful. Even if I give you your point, I would ask you a question. If your house is on fire, do you throw fuel on it or do you attempt to put it out?

Pixelsmith,

Since you had the wherewithal to thank the two post above this, I'll assume that you agree with my proposed definition of "atmosphere". Thanks. We can now move forward with a few givens, the Greenhouse Effect is a fact of science, the atmosphere is composed of gases and, it seems, Global warming is a fact (if you agree with Bob).

We'll be moving on to the science of carbon, it's properties and it's sequestration cycle next time I get a moment.

I am also not disputing global warming, global cooling, climate change, tectonics, etc. These things have gone on for nearly 5 billion years. The planet has survived just fine so far. I understand the science of carbon and the sequestration cycle so you do not even have to go there.
What you need to research is the fact that AGW proponents are trying to shove through a world wide tax scheme based on the false premise that MORE CO2 is going to cause run away warming and cause some sort of mass extinction.
The "science" you are trying to defend has been manipulated beyond what you probably realize. There are very few if any credible scientists left in the AGW camp. Even NASA has been busted for manipulating climate data. If "warming" is real, why then have AGW proponents destroyed and manipulated the data? Why have they manipulated the peer review process? The corruption goes all the way to the UN's IPCC Chairman. There is really nothing you can do now to defend this pseudo science/religion, it has been exposed, and it is just the tip of the iceberg.