Cap and Trade vote on Friday

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What is not true?? Show me a fact posted that is not true. It is hardly a mainstream source. Simply saying that it is biased without a single example why is stupid. It is simply not coming up with the hypthesis that you like therefore it is wrong. Again I ask you Mr climate expert, refute something in there if it is wrong.

Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.

Are you kidding?


When crap like this starts a SCIENCE explaination, I stop reading.
The funny thing is I am a skeptic also. But not brainwashed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.

Are you kidding?


When crap like this starts a SCIENCE explaination, I stop reading.
The funny thing is I am a skeptic also. But not brainwashed.

That is your problem. The FACT is that if you show science that does not walk in lockstep with the global warming police you ARE held to be politically incorrect. You Sniper and Riot are perfect examples of this despite the fact that none of you (myself included) have any area of expertise to draw a differing opinion from. The FACT is that unless you have your head buried in the sand you will see that those who dare to present evidence against the global warming army are cast out. Perhaps if you read the report you may educate yourself about the subject and from the content of your posts that is an area that you could use some help in. I am hardly brainwashed. However I am skeptical and listen to both sides of the issue. The fact that I happen to lean to the other side doesnt make me brainwashed, it may make me right.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

That is your problem. The FACT is that if you show science that does not walk in lockstep with the global warming police you ARE held to be politically incorrect. You Sniper and Riot are perfect examples of this despite the fact that none of you (myself included) have any area of expertise to draw a differing opinion from. The FACT is that unless you have your head buried in the sand you will see that those who dare to present evidence against the global warming army are cast out. Perhaps if you read the report you may educate yourself about the subject and from the content of your posts that is an area that you could use some help in. I am hardly brainwashed. However I am skeptical and listen to both sides of the issue. The fact that I happen to lean to the other side doesnt make me brainwashed, it may make me right.

Yes you are a witch and should be burned at the stake.
The experts that we both read... The VAST majority of
the experts have said that the earth is in a warming trend.

I have had THE EXACT argument with a fellow teacher.
His father is in the petrol business. I have looked at so
many graphs levels of atmospheric readings, oh this study
did not take this into account etc... And then you give me
that crap to read?

So you dont believe the Earth is in a warming period, therefore
it is impossible man could not have caused any warming because their is no
warming.

The above is your conclusion based on all the stuff you have read?
ALL the stuff, not just what you want to read.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Yes you are a witch and should be burned at the stake.
The experts that we both read... The VAST majority of
the experts have said that the earth is in a warming trend.

I have had THE EXACT argument with a fellow teacher.
His father is in the petrol business. I have looked at so
many graphs levels of atmospheric readings, oh this study
did not take this into account etc... And then you give me
that crap to read?

So you dont believe the Earth is in a warming period, therefore
it is impossible man could not have caused any warming because their is no
warming.

The above is your conclusion based on all the stuff you have read?
ALL the stuff, not just what you want to read.

The earth is always in a warming or cooling trend. That is not the dispute. The dispute is the effect of man on that warming or cooling. The author of that report comes to the conclusion that based on the data presented that humans account for a minuscule amount of the factors that may cause or accelerate global warming. Perhaps IF you read that you would understand that. The question that i have is that if effect of human activity and the much used "carbon" footprint is virtually nil then why are we spending so much time, money and energy on worrying about it? Science is making new discoveries and refuting old ones all the time. There is so much data with contrary findings that i tend to believe the less radical of the two arguments. That is that global warming is overstated and largely free of human interference.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The earth is always in a warming or cooling trend. That is not the dispute. The dispute is the effect of man on that warming or cooling. The author of that report comes to the conclusion that based on the data presented that humans account for a minuscule amount of the factors that may cause or accelerate global warming. Perhaps IF you read that you would understand that. The question that i have is that if effect of human activity and the much used "carbon" footprint is virtually nil then why are we spending so much time, money and energy on worrying about it? Science is making new discoveries and refuting old ones all the time. There is so much data with contrary findings that i tend to believe the less radical of the two arguments. That is that global warming is overstated and largely free of human interference.

Science isn't "... and refuting old ones all the time". Very rarely have "old discoveries" been completely refuted. Science, 99% of the time, builds and expands, rather than tears down. That's the type of assumption some might make when their science exposure is pretty much only from the evening news (which loves to try and make things black and white and extremely simplistic)

A different kind of author might draw a much different conclusion. Try this: it's a peer-reviewed well-respected consensus of the science to date. Sorta cinched the global warming-man's involvement thing. Nothing has been refuted since, only expanded upon by further information. You might have to pay to read it on-line.

Nature 408, 184-187 (9 November 2000) | doi:10.1038/35041539; Received 6 January 2000; Accepted 26 September 2000


Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model
Peter M. Cox1, Richard A. Betts1, Chris D. Jones1, Steven A. Spall1 & Ian J. Totterdell2

Hadley Centre, The Met Office, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK
Southampton Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK
Correspondence to: Peter M. Cox1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.M.C. (e-mail: Email: pmcox@meto.gov.uk).

The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate1. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems2, but this absorption is sensitive to climate3, 4 as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations5, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change6. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon–climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century. We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr-1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Science isn't "... and refuting old ones all the time". Very rarely have "old discoveries" been completely refuted. Science, 99% of the time, builds and expands, rather than tears down. That's the type of assumption some might make when their science exposure is pretty much only from the evening news (which loves to try and make things black and white and extremely simplistic)

A different kind of author might draw a much different conclusion. Try this: it's a peer-reviewed well-respected consensus of the science to date. Sorta cinched the global warming-man's involvement thing. Nothing has been refuted since, only expanded upon by further information. You might have to pay to read it on-line.

Nature 408, 184-187 (9 November 2000) | doi:10.1038/35041539; Received 6 January 2000; Accepted 26 September 2000


Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model
Peter M. Cox1, Richard A. Betts1, Chris D. Jones1, Steven A. Spall1 & Ian J. Totterdell2

Hadley Centre, The Met Office, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK
Southampton Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK
Correspondence to: Peter M. Cox1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.M.C. (e-mail: Email: pmcox@meto.gov.uk).

The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate1. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems2, but this absorption is sensitive to climate3, 4 as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations5, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change6. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon–climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century. We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr-1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.

Why is this any more valid than the studies that refute the idea that man has very little to do with this?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-EDF6D8150789

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why is this any more valid than the studies that refute the idea that man has very little to do with this?

Because it has withstood nearly 10 years of rigourous scientific peer-review as to the validity of it's conclusions, while opinions (there is very little valid scientific findings) that refute that hypothesis have not and remain a markedly minority opinion.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The earth is always in a warming or cooling trend. 1.That is not the dispute. 2.The dispute is the effect of man on that warming or cooling. The author of that report comes to the conclusion that based on the data presented that humans account for a minuscule amount of the factors that may cause or accelerate global warming. Perhaps IF you read that you would understand that. The question that i have is that if effect of human activity and the much used "carbon" footprint is virtually nil then why are we spending so much time, money and energy on worrying about it? Science is making new discoveries and refuting old ones all the time. There is so much data with contrary findings that i tend to believe the less radical of the two arguments. That is that global warming is overstated and largely free of human interference.

1.Yes it is according to you. You do not believe we are in a warming period.

2.You read nothing I wrote before.
Sorry about all the other stuff before this.

Lastly.
A problem with basic research illustrated today.
This would be in the category of storage of electrical energy.
Except this is about grants possibly wasted on Cancer research.

Many other grants involve biological research unlikely to break new ground. For example, one project asks whether a laboratory discovery involving colon cancer also applies to breast cancer. But even if it does apply, there is no treatment yet that exploits it.
The cancer institute has spent $105 billion since President Richard M. Nixon declared war on the disease in 1971. The American Cancer Society, the largest private financer of cancer research, has spent about $3.4 billion on research grants since 1946.
Yet the fight against cancer is going slower than most had hoped, with only small changes in the death rate in the almost 40 years since it began.
One major impediment, scientists agree, is the grant system itself. It has become a sort of jobs program, a way to keep research laboratories going year after year with the understanding that the focus will be on small projects unlikely to take significant steps toward curing cancer.
“These grants are not silly, but they are only likely to produce incremental progress,” said Dr. Robert C. Young, chancellor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia and chairman of the Board of Scientific Advisors, an independent group that makes recommendations to the cancer institute.
The institute’s reviewers choose such projects because, with too little money to finance most proposals, they are timid about taking chances on ones that might not succeed. The problem, Dr. Young and others say, is that projects that could make a major difference in cancer prevention and treatment are all too often crowded out because they are too uncertain.

I can see how if consevative means what I think it does,
it may not be compatable with significant new findings in
Science. I would hope this is not the case.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

1.Yes it is according to you. You do not believe we are in a warming period.

2.You read nothing I wrote before.
Sorry about all the other stuff before this.

Lastly.
A problem with basic research illustrated today.
This would be in the category of storage of electrical energy.
Except this is about grants possibly wasted on Cancer research.

Many other grants involve biological research unlikely to break new ground. For example, one project asks whether a laboratory discovery involving colon cancer also applies to breast cancer. But even if it does apply, there is no treatment yet that exploits it.
The cancer institute has spent $105 billion since President Richard M. Nixon declared war on the disease in 1971. The American Cancer Society, the largest private financer of cancer research, has spent about $3.4 billion on research grants since 1946.
Yet the fight against cancer is going slower than most had hoped, with only small changes in the death rate in the almost 40 years since it began.
One major impediment, scientists agree, is the grant system itself. It has become a sort of jobs program, a way to keep research laboratories going year after year with the understanding that the focus will be on small projects unlikely to take significant steps toward curing cancer.
“These grants are not silly, but they are only likely to produce incremental progress,” said Dr. Robert C. Young, chancellor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia and chairman of the Board of Scientific Advisors, an independent group that makes recommendations to the cancer institute.
The institute’s reviewers choose such projects because, with too little money to finance most proposals, they are timid about taking chances on ones that might not succeed. The problem, Dr. Young and others say, is that projects that could make a major difference in cancer prevention and treatment are all too often crowded out because they are too uncertain.

I can see how if consevative means what I think it does,
it may not be compatable with significant new findings in
Science. I would hope this is not the case.

You know what I love? When you begin to argue with yourself. Then try to equate being Conservative with cancer research.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You know what I love? When you begin to argue with yourself. Then try to equate being Conservative with cancer research.

Again totally disingenious.
The point of the article basic research funds
are not going into projects that will yield signficant results.
I then quipped that the way this funding works might
be a conservative way of thinking.


And of course I argue with myself all the time.
Because I hope to look at everything in order
to find 'the truth'. This is a difficult subject area,
but not as much if you limit your questions. I purposely
look (as odd as it may seem to you) for sources that
go against my initial reactions to events and such.

And I fail to see how I argued with myself in the post,
but I definitely argue and question my own leanings.
I happen to think its healthy to be honest in trying
to find out how things work.

But if you prefer not to take any self examination of
your views that is your choice. Dont be dissappointed
when the world does not work like you want it to.

This is really a basic philisophical difference between
people. Some people question, others seek comfortable
views and seek affirmation of those views. Cover
those eyes.

I am not and never have been an environmental freak.
I do like a good kayak trip in quiet water. I am a water
hugger.

Guilty.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The earth is always in a warming or cooling trend. That is not the dispute. The dispute is the effect of man on that warming or cooling. The author of that report comes to the conclusion that based on the data presented that humans account for a minuscule amount of the factors that may cause or accelerate global warming. Perhaps IF you read that you would understand that. The question that i have is that if effect of human activity and the much used "carbon" footprint is virtually nil then why are we spending so much time, money and energy on worrying about it? Science is making new discoveries and refuting old ones all the time. There is so much data with contrary findings that i tend to believe the less radical of the two arguments. That is that global warming is overstated and largely free of human interference.

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1078



some excerpts:


This is not to say that we don't face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

'... one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s'


the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years

For example, the widely touted "consensus" of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC's report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report's "Summary for Policymakers."



What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That's an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly



http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/j...25/185606.html


Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”


CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.


The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.


Global warming and the “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity

An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year to influence federal policy.

Politico.com notes that since 2003, the number of global warming lobbyists has risen by more than 300 percent, and “Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1078



some excerpts:


This is not to say that we don't face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

'... one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s'


the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years

For example, the widely touted "consensus" of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC's report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report's "Summary for Policymakers."



What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That's an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly



http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/j...25/185606.html


Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”


CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.


The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.


Global warming and the “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity

An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year to influence federal policy.

Politico.com notes that since 2003, the number of global warming lobbyists has risen by more than 300 percent, and “Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”

First ref.

Fredrick Singer.

Well known scientist because of the books he has written on the great global warming swindle. A conservative favorite. A scientist that gets into policy. Just like the other side where some of these guys discredit themselves by writing these books forecasting New York going under water in 50 years when this part of the science/policy is not their speciality.

Second ref.

Look at the adds.

I have personally been through so many of these its quite sad.
People trying to make money off of our personal politics.
IN the name of science. Both groups.

My initial claim is still sound from the overall sources without political
bents that I went through about 6 months ago: The earth is
in a warming period. It is not clear what is causing it... then
conjecture from humans to the sun cycles and on and on.

The paragraph directly above has not changed.
Any other articles would be appreciated though.
I have seen a bunch of them.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by pgardn

First ref.

Fredrick Singer.

Well known scientist because of the books he has written on the great global warming swindle. A conservative favorite. A scientist that gets into policy. Just like the other side where some of these guys discredit themselves by writing these books forecasting New York going under water in 50 years when this part of the science/policy is not their speciality.

Second ref.

Look at the adds.

I have personally been through so many of these its quite sad.
People trying to make money off of our personal politics.
IN the name of science. Both groups.

My initial claim is still sound from the overall sources without political
bents that I went through about 6 months ago: The earth is
in a warming period. It is not clear what is causing it... then
conjecture from humans to the sun cycles and on and on.

The paragraph directly above has not changed.
Any other articles would be appreciated though.
I have seen a bunch of them.

give up.

you're fighting a brain that evolved to be cognizant of immediate threats. saber toothed tiger's leaping from underbrush. not things that take decades or centuries.

i'm impressed that denial is now a minority position. i think it says a lot about our social evolution.

but you'll never convince everyone. one 70 degree day in august is all the proof needed you're wrong.