Cap and Trade vote on Friday

[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?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

A few decades ago scientits were fearing an ice age?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

A few decades ago scientits were fearing an ice age?

A few more decades ago malaria was thought to be caused by "bad air".

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.

[dellinger63]

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...change-report/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...change-report/

How about we agree to keep the discussion of global climate change in the scientific realm, where it belongs, rather than stepping off into the sideshow of the political circus?

Originally Posted by dellinger63

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...change-report/

The guy who wrote the report is an economist.

I am glad he is questioning the science but its
really hard to refute unless he gives out the papers
that he read or some compilation like Danzig gave out
so the data that someone has gathered can be looked at
as selective, wideranging and important... we just dont
know. He may have used part of the report Danzig gave.
It sort of sounds the same. And in that case I can see how
he was told to move on or find something more comprehensive.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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....

www.badscience.net

"Next week the World Conference of Science Journalists will be coming to London. A few of us felt they were might not adequately address some of the key problems in their profession, which has deteriorated to the point where they present a serious danger to public health, fail to keep geeks well nourished, and actively undermine the publics’ understanding of what it means for there to be evidence for a claim."

I don't put all the blame on the media, I think some of it lays within some school systems: not teaching critical reasoning or thinking skills, calling "intelligent design" a "science", etc. type of thing.