Cap and Trade vote on Friday

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Here is what this thread tells us.
1. There is a lot of conflicting data on climate change
2. The Pro global warming crowd is absolutely right and any questions raised against their closely held but seemingly diminished theory is obviously either wrong, politically motivated or grandstanding scientists.
3. The anti global warming side isn't allowed to voice skepticism without being dismissed as ignorant, religious radicals
4. Farmers should have forseen a drought coming in order to prevent the dust bowl from coming.
5. China is suddenly on the cutting edge of pollution technology

Anything i missed?

[hi_im_god]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...Community.aspx

this is bad.

the delusion of climate change even invaded the bush era defense department.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Here is what this thread tells us.
1. There is a lot of conflicting data on climate change
2. The Pro global warming crowd is absolutely right and any questions raised against their closely held but seemingly diminished theory is obviously either wrong, politically motivated or grandstanding scientists.
3. The anti global warming side isn't allowed to voice skepticism without being dismissed as ignorant, religious radicals
4. Farmers should have forseen a drought coming in order to prevent the dust bowl from coming.
5. China is suddenly on the cutting edge of pollution technology

Anything i missed?

1. Yes there is. But the majority points to the warming of the
Earth for at least the last 50 years.

2. Yes it always comes down to politics.

3. PLEASE send me the info. I have found some good stuff
for your argument (the Earth is not in a warming period).
But the majority is clearly the OTHER side.

4. pass

5. They are in Coal plants that give off less CO2. They are experimental
and expensive. The point was that they are going to be in a lot
of trouble with their air and water. ANd will have to do something innovative.
But to hell with that. We dont need to see how any other country
handles a problem and try to learn from it.

[witchdoctor]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Here is what this thread tells us.

The anti global warming side isn't allowed to voice skepticism without being dismissed as ignorant, religious radicals

I can't help but think of CannonShell as an ignorant, religious radical.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by witchdoctor

I can't help but think of CannonShell as an ignorant, religious radical.

hallelujah

[Riot]

The anti global warming side isn't allowed to voice skepticism without being dismissed as ignorant, religious radicals

Or victims. Can't forget to play the victim card.

If the "anti-" global warming side wants to voice skepticism, the way to do so is to show the overwhelmingly fatal flaws in the reams of science that's already been done, and how the conclusions made cannot possibly be validated or logically derived from that accumulated information.

Politics doesn't enter into that conversation. It's completely extraneous.

Now, that wealth of information has already stood up to years (a couple decades) of peer review, and is being further validated on an ongoing basis by new information, how predictions are indeed working out, so much so that the vast majority of scientific disciplines fully support it.

It is rare, a small minority, that voice skepticism of the reality of global warming. Sort of like the Flat Earth Society members, and those that think the moon walk occured in Arizona.

See, the thing about science is that one doesn't form an opinion, then try to find stuff to justify it. Rather, one goes in with no opinion, and the reality and facts steer you to logical conclusions.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Now, that wealth of information has already stood up to years (a couple decades) of peer review,

It is rare, a small minority, that voice skepticism of the reality of global warming. Sort of like the Flat Earth Society members, and those that think the moon walk occured in Arizona.

.

not according to time magazine at least in the mid 70's or are these the Flat Earth society members?

Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

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. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

not according to time magazine at least in the mid 70's or are these the Flat Earth society members?

Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

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. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

??? Do you have a point? If so, what is it?

Originally Posted by dellinger63

not according to time magazine at least in the mid 70's or are these the Flat Earth society members?

Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

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. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

There are many more older studies also showing this and the opposite.
But as of right now, the general consensus is that the earth is
in a warming period.

I think this is the problem: There will be individual studies or reviews of studies that will indicate the earth is cooling, the earth is warming, we cannot tell, the earth's temp. has generally stayed steady having up and down cycles.

But the general consensus is that the Earth is in a warming trend. This might change, as Science this big, is very complex, takes a lot of time, and can be interpreted in many ways depending on what one wants to looks at as significant. And of course political leanings.

And yes the press will take many findings or studies and blow them way out of proportion as to make for excitement... happens all the time in studies concerning certain food, drugs, epidemics...
'Eat raw pine needles, dont eat raw pine needles...'

So for our health nuts the following appear to be true as of now:

1. Smoking is linked to cancer, heart disease, and a few other things in most people.
2. Certain types of fats (saturated variety) increase the risk of heart and circulatory problems, strokes in most people.
3. High Fiber in the diet appears to lower the risk of colon cancer in most people.

We could go on.

ANd of course that person that smokes, eats only butter avoiding fiber at all costs will live to 100 getting killed in a car accident. Some will then conclude this is evidence that the 3 findings written above are wrong.

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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.

Its easy and comfortable.

Perhaps you are right.
By the retorts that have been distorted
I am wasting my time.

I will again invoke Jonathan Swift:
Do not try to reason a man out of something he did not reason himself into.

As I stated in another post, it may just be
basic philisophical differences of trying to
figure out how the world works and our place
in it.

[Danzig]

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

Cool.
I read this one.
Well sort of as it is long but I got the basics.

1. This little unfinished report relies basically on two tools to measure global temperature changes. Upper surface ocean water in the 1)Atlantic and 2)Pacific. Nothing about atmospheric temp. changes other than water vapor may not have been accounted for in temp readings that do use atmospheric temp to try and determine if the earth is warming and which actually show the earth has been in a warming trend.

2. There are solar scientist that are highly skeptical of this report as they do not think the solar cycles play near as an important role as the atmospheric absorbing and releasing heat energy. This goes directly against this report.

But that was interesting nonetheless as it tells me more about how people are struggling to make comprehensive measurements of the average temp. of the earth.

3. They also noted that some computer models were way off in their ability to accurately assess the temp. of the ocean's at the surface and the rises predicted did not occur.

4. No mention of the Arctic Ocean melting which is in so many of 'the other sides' web pages and documents. I have seen the Greenland thing before.
No mention of Antarctica, some of which has been used to say the Earth is not warming. It was not present from what I read.

It is a fairly narrow assessment but I personally learned some more stuff.
Thanks Z.