This winter is killing two of the biggest scare tactic lies ever told...

#176
#176
g8terh8ter_eric said:
There was a petition last year that 31,000 US scientists signed that said they reject the theory that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”.

Sorry, but robbing Peter to give to Paul's flawed and young science experiments, is just wrong. If there is a threat, I think that the private sector would be making a bigger deal about it, but yet I hear crickets from everyone but the government agencies. The liberal media and the government are driving this argument that we need to tax the hell out of people and businesses to try and compensate for .5 of a degree. If we had warmed 5-10 degrees, then I would be on board.
Click to expand...


Yes, because private industry never foolishly chooses short term profit by ignoring the long term consequences of their actions on others. Ford Pinto, Exxon Valdes, any one of thousands of toxic chemical dumping, etc.
 
#177
#177
lawgator1 said:
Yes, because private industry never foolishly chooses short term profit by ignoring the long term consequences of their actions on others. Ford Pinto, Exxon Valdes, any one of thousands of toxic chemical dumping, etc.
Click to expand...

One could argue the government is the same way with their spending, so that's not a very good argument.
 
#178
#178
IPorange said:
Wait, I thought you were saying there ISN'T warming? Isn't that what you've said in multiple posts now? So what is your position? That there ISN'T warming, or that there is but man isn't the cause? Those are two very different stances.
Click to expand...
Don't be naive... you know as well as I do that the whole controversy over global warming isn't whether or not the earth is warming or not (it could be, it could not be). The point of conflict lies in the argument about whether or not it is caused by human activity.
 
#179
#179
If you narrow the sample size enough you get all kinds of results. If a month of cold and snow for east coast means no Global warming, then the fact its raining in Canada and the Olympics are having to bus in snow means Global warming is true, right?
 
#181
#181
Someone mentioned the tree rings and Ice Core data earlier in the thread, in a "we can prove AGW with this data" context... Here is the Ice Core data.

I recommend trying again. Ice Cores, tree rings, and the anecdotal evidence we have from the Middle Ages, all indicate that we are NOT at the highest global temperatures of all time.

Don't even get me started on the instrumental record, and how the data has been manipulated to show a warming trend. I am not one to say this is evidence that AGW doesn't exist... but I AM one to say that there is no data to PROVE AGW. That's my beef. We can't spend billions of dollars trying to avoid something that "might" be happening.
 
Last edited:
#182
#182
rwemyss said:
Someone mentioned the tree rings and Ice Core data earlier in the thread, in a "we can prove AGW with this data" context... Here is the Ice Core data.

I recommend trying again. Ice Cores, tree rings, and the anecdotal evidence we have from the Middle Ages, all indicate that we are NOT at the highest global temperatures of all time.

Don't even get me started on the instrumental record, and how the data has been manipulated to show a warming trend. I am not one to say this is evidence that AGW doesn't exist... but I AM one to say that there is no data to PROVE AGW. That's my beef. We can't spend billions of dollars trying to avoid something that "might" be happening.
Click to expand...

At least a credible engineer weighs in on the situation. :)
 
#183
#183
g8terh8ter_eric said:
There was a petition last year that 31,000 US scientists signed that said they reject the theory that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”.

Sorry, but robbing Peter to give to Paul's flawed and young science experiments, is just wrong. If there is a threat, I think that the private sector would be making a bigger deal about it, but yet I hear crickets from everyone but the government agencies. The liberal media and the government are driving this argument that we need to tax the hell out of people and businesses to try and compensate for .5 of a degree. If we had warmed 5-10 degrees, then I would be on board.
Click to expand...

You don't hear crickets. BP has been funding huge biofuel initiatives and ConocoPhillips and Chevron are strongly engaged on carbon capture and sequestration. The questions is whether or not that is because of the government's actions.....that could be a chicken/egg situation.
 
#184
#184
TennTradition said:
You don't hear crickets. BP has been funding huge biofuel initiatives and ConocoPhillips and Chevron are strongly engaged on carbon capture and sequestration. The questions is whether or not that is because of the government's actions.....that could be a chicken/egg situation.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me they are doing what they can to say they are doing something about it, even though they probably believe climate change is bunk. I believe in climate change, over a long period of time. :)
 
#185
#185
g8terh8ter_eric said:
At least a credible engineer weighs in on the situation. :)
Click to expand...
:lol: Not really. Only because I went to UT. :good!:

I have a rather large soapbox on this issue, so I usually avoid discussing it... I have rather enjoyed these record cold months for North America and Europe combined with Climategate... some really interesting things have come about from THAT little scandal...
 
#186
#186
rwemyss said:
:lol: Not really. Only because I went to UT. :good!:

I have a rather large soapbox on this issue, so I usually avoid discussing it... I have rather enjoyed these record cold months for North America and Europe combined with Climategate... some really interesting things have come about from THAT little scandal...
Click to expand...

Yeah, the data manipulation was something that I always figured was going on behind closed doors.
 
#187
#187
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Sounds to me they are doing what they can to say they are doing something about it, even though they probably believe climate change is bunk. I believe in climate change, over a long period of time. :)
Click to expand...

They are actually very serious about it, but there are two ways you can take that. They may be serious about it because they believe it is necessary or they may believe it gives them a competitive edge if it is legislated.

I've talked with a lot of people in industry over the last 3 months...there are many that believe that man is causing warming, there were many that gave the impression they didn't think that.
 
#188
#188
rwemyss said:
:lol: Not really. Only because I went to UT. :good!:

I have a rather large soapbox on this issue, so I usually avoid discussing it... I have rather enjoyed these record cold months for North America and Europe combined with Climategate... some really interesting things have come about from THAT little scandal...
Click to expand...

I used to have a soapbox in the sense that man wasn't causing warming too. I just didn't see it. I really didn't understand a lot of aspects, and had a wrong impression, so when I took some classes through which I learned more, I changed my opinion. (This is in contrast to those who don't believe man can possibly contribute, yet have informed themselves of the issue.) I don't think that there is an open and shut case ... there still exists scientific uncertainty, particularly in forecasting what the effects of predicted warming will be. But, when it comes to man's emissions contributing to warming, I now feel comfortable accepting the assertion.
 
#190
#190
TennTradition said:
I used to have a soapbox in the sense that man wasn't causing warming too. I just didn't see it. I really didn't understand a lot of aspects, and had a wrong impression, so when I took some classes through which I learned more, I changed my opinion. (This is in contrast to those who don't believe man can possibly contribute, yet have informed themselves of the issue.) I don't think that there is an open and shut case ... there still exists scientific uncertainty, particularly in forecasting what the effects of predicted warming will be. But, when it comes to man's emissions contributing to warming, I now feel comfortable accepting the assertion.
Click to expand...
I certainly still don't. There are so many different variables that contribute to the climate of the Earth, including many different damping effects on things that would seem logical to expect that add to the heat held in the system... the system is HIGHLY chaotic. My favorite article was written by a controls professor, that essentially asserts we are a variable to the system, but we can never change how the system is reacting, because we are not in control of all the varibles... Look at it this way, we COULD be facing one of the deepest solar minimums in over 100 years. Our contributions to the climatic system of the Earth could possibly be the only factor stopping an Ice Age. The point is, WE DON'T KNOW! ... and probably never will.

So I admit that it is certainly possible that we are creating a warming trend in the climate... if you can admit that it may actually be a GOOD thing.

What I will NOT admit, is that the instrumental global temperature record is accurate enough to notice a 0.2 deg F rise in temperature per year. If you have any experience in measurements and instrumentation, you know that is WELL within the error for 90% of temperature measuring devices we have NOW... and many of the statistical methods used to "adjust" instrumental data (now that they are finally available to the public, thanks to Climategate) are suspect, and NOT scientific.
 
#191
#191
The point that man cannot control climate is a good one. Of course that doesn't mean man can't influence it, but control is another matter altogether. I personally believe that man introduces a positive forcing to temperatures on earth due to emissions of greenhouse gases. That seems to be a fairly open and shut case to me. The total extent to which the climate will respond to this forcing is more open to debate, though I believe that the global average temperature predictions are much better than, let's say, the precipitation forecasts region by region.

Your points about the uncertainty in temperature measurements is valid; but, if the error bars remain constant, more measurements equal decreased uncertainty in the average of the measurements, right? So, when talking about global average temperatures and many measurements taken across many regions, measurement uncertainty is reduced. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it can be entirely statistically significant to claim a .2 degree temperature increase per year, depending on how many years this is recorded over. If the total temperature increase is statistically significant given the error bars on the measurement of each end point, then the average temperature increase per year can be less than the original error bars, yet be entirely significant. Regardless, you're just throwing out the .2 degree per year number, right...because that seems higher than the actual number.

I have not personally performed temperature reconstructions, so I won't stake a claim to say that without a doubt they are correct; but, I do believe that we are seeing warming, and I also believe that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to that warming. Does that mean that we may just miss an ice age tomorrow because we benefited from the warming? Perhaps....but, that is another discussion it seems to me.
 
Last edited:
#192
#192
I wish it would go ahead and warm up just a little around here. I could stand a few days of 70 degrees. :)
 
#194
#194
I'm more inclined to agree that warming is occurring from all the heat that we release to the system from the burning of coal and petroleum. I'm still not convinced on the whole "greenhouse gas" argument.

The nice thing is, we can agree on some points.

The real question, though, TT... is do you think spending billions of dollars to "Stop AGW!" is worth it, when you can agree that there are so many things that we don't know about climate science? So many of the things that common people have been fed as TRUTH is proving to not be so "cut and dry" and the "experts" that supposedly have a "consensus" on AGW HAVE proven to not be trustworthy.

I don't think it is worth it... you may still. Now if you want to win me over, we can talk about reducing waste and increasing efficiencies. I'm all about doing that, because that's what we do as engineers, right? You just have to get a return on your investment to increase the efficiency of your system. I'm a huge proponent of LEED, even though I don't believe in AGW... just because I find more efficient systems to hold a value, and get a return... of course, I also believe the future of energy is still in nuclear power generation. Because it is so much more efficient than burning a black rock that you dug up!!! :)
 
#196
#196
rwemyss said:
Someone mentioned the tree rings and Ice Core data earlier in the thread, in a "we can prove AGW with this data" context... Here is the Ice Core data.

I recommend trying again. Ice Cores, tree rings, and the anecdotal evidence we have from the Middle Ages, all indicate that we are NOT at the highest global temperatures of all time.

Don't even get me started on the instrumental record, and how the data has been manipulated to show a warming trend. I am not one to say this is evidence that AGW doesn't exist... but I AM one to say that there is no data to PROVE AGW. That's my beef. We can't spend billions of dollars trying to avoid something that "might" be happening.
Click to expand...

Who said it was the hottest ever? It's been hotter before, but not since Homo Sapiens have been the only Hominids around. Did you read the FAQ on the site you linked? You'll find it illuminating.

Here's what you are missing in this figure: The x axis stretches back 450,000 years. Human history as we know it is crammed into an eye lash width at the very end of the core. Now, as you can see, by the scale of the graph the increase in CO2 over the last 200 years appears instantaneously (it's a vertical line), and towers above anything in the figure. If you'd like to try the same schtick again, you can dig up the older records that show higher CO2 tens of millions of years ago, but it's hardly relevant. As you can see in geologic history, CO2 rise actually followed temperature rises as it was released through various positive feedback mechanisms, before other climate forcings pushed shifts that led to cooling, and then positive feedback loops occurred that net-stored carbon. NOW, for the first time that we know of, CO2 is being released not as a forcing of temperature range, but actually on it's own. That means the positive feedbacks that occur in the past augmenting warming trends are now kicking in on top of already being in the "warm" part of a Milankovitch cycle, and at levels that are unprecedented in geologically recent times. It's clear that the current situation is unprecedented from your figure. What's going to happen next is likely a, geologically speaking, rapid warming, followed eventually by a cooling simply because certain negative feedback loops do exist that one would think will eventually shift the climate paradigm (this would be even more devastating than the initial warming. Not Day After Tomorrow devastating, but pretty damn bad. This might play out over 200 years or a thousand years, but either way it's going to get warmer in the short (next couple of centuries) term. The trends of the last two centuries aren't even a millimeter on this graph because of the scale. This is a classic example of someone not thinking about the sort of data or scale of what they are looking at. Also, notice the baseline is 1960-1990, which were a warmer 30 year block than the previous 100. Again, this is actually a low-ball. YOU try again.
 
#200
#200
g8terh8ter_eric said:
There was a petition last year that 31,000 US scientists signed that said they reject the theory that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”.

Sorry, but robbing Peter to give to Paul's flawed and young science experiments, is just wrong. If there is a threat, I think that the private sector would be making a bigger deal about it, but yet I hear crickets from everyone but the government agencies. The liberal media and the government are driving this argument that we need to tax the hell out of people and businesses to try and compensate for .5 of a degree. If we had warmed 5-10 degrees, then I would be on board.
Click to expand...

This "petition" came up in the other thread that people quit posting in. This was my response:

IPorange said:
There are a whole lot of "MD's" on that list. Look for yourself.

In any case, that has been around awhile and has been thoroughly debunked. It was partly funded by Exxon.

Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

debunking / Oregon Petition

Hardly any of those people have anything to do with a relevant field, many are things like orthopedics or obstetricians, and some don't even exist.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top