Climate change- Its a semi long read + Poll

[YoTa_BoX]

I for one do not believe in the so called Climate change that us humans are causing to this planet. I read this article and figured I would share it with every one. I just wanted to point out one section of the article though. * Politically popular though it may be, the belief that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary driver of average planetary temperature is junk science. For instance, Earth experienced an ice age about 450 million years ago at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are estimated to have been 15 times the pre-industrial level.*

To me its the government looking for ways to get us sheeple to pay for taxes on make believe
stuff. The government always seems to be trying to find ways in *Scaring* us into paying extra bullshit taxes. Any who, here is the article.

AS the core samples from deep underground pass through the logging sensor before me, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is clearly displayed. Friendly, brown sands for the warm interglacial periods and hostile, sterile grey clays for the cold glaciations. And for more than 90 per cent of recent geological time the Earth has been colder than today.

We modern humans are lucky to live towards the end of the most recent of the intermittent but welcome warm interludes. It is a 10,000 year-long period called the Holocene, during which our civilisations have evolved and flourished.

The cores tell the story that this period is only a short interlude during a long-term decline in global temperature - they also warn of the imminence of the next glacial episode in a series stretching back more than 2 million years.

Together with 50 other scientists and technicians, I am aboard the drilling ship Joides Resolution. JR, as it is affectionately known, is the workhorse of the Ocean Drilling Program, an international program that is to environmental science what NASA is to space science.
JR's drilling crew can retrieve cores up to 1km or more below the seabed and we are drilling today about 80km east of South Island in New Zealand. The ancient muds and sands that make up the sediment layers we pass through are the most important record of ancient climate that scientists possess. And they tell the tale that climate always changes.

Some core alterations are ruled by changes in the Earth's orbit at periods of 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, others by fluctuations in solar output and others display oceanographic and climate shifts caused by . . . we know not what.

Climate, it seems, changes ceaselessly: sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, oft-times for reasons we do not fully understand.

Similar cores through polar ice reveal, contrary to received wisdom, that past temperature changes were followed - not preceded but followed - by changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

Yet the public has been misinformed to believe that increasing human carbon dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange cause of climate change that postdates its supposed effect?

The now numerous special interest groups who continue to lobby for unnecessary and economically harmful carbon dioxide taxation need to appreciate that nature, not the world's governments, will determine future climate. Second, that there is no scientific evidence that warmings greater than the much-talked about 2C will cause environmental catastrophe; rather, this number is one plucked out of the air for reasons of political targetry and control. And, third, that to limit atmospheric carbon dioxide to 450ppm, also a widely touted figure, makes no sense, because past carbon dioxide levels attained more than 10 times this without known adverse environmental effects, while greening the planet.

Politically popular though it may be, the belief that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary driver of average planetary temperature is junk science. For instance, Earth experienced an ice age about 450 million years ago at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are estimated to have been 15 times the pre-industrial level.

It is simply science fiction to believe that 450ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide and 2C of warming are magic numbers that somehow mark a "tipping point"in Earth's climate system. Rather, they are politically contrived targets, erected for the purpose of stampeding scientifically innocent citizens into a gaping corral of carbon dioxide taxation.

The simplest explanation for the mild warming that occurred in the late 20th century is that it was part of Earth's ever-changing pattern of natural climate change and the job of scientists is to seek evidence to test that interpretation. They have and literally thousands of scientific papers to date have described climate evidence that is consistent with natural change.

Despite all the efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the expenditure of about $100 billion of research money since 1990, no scientific paper exists that demonstrates that the late 20th century warming, or the past 10 years of cooling for that matter, fall outside the rates and magnitudes of past (geological) climate change.

Melting glaciers (but, in some places, advancing), rising sea levels (but, in some places, falling), increasing numbers of storms (actually, currently at a 30-year low), increasing numbers of polar bears and changes in migratory patterns of birds may very well all have happened or be happening. But these facts say nothing about a human causality for such changes.

It is not for the independent climate scientists (the so-called "climate sceptics") to disprove that dangerous human-caused warming is happening. Rather, it is for the alarmist scientists of the IPCC and CSIRO to show that the simple idea of natural climate change can be invalidated. This they have failed to do.

[Total_Blender]

That article was written by a guy named Bob Carter. The general consensus I get from a quick google search is.

1.) Bob Carter is a hack.
2.) The scientific community regards Bob Carter as "a hack".
3.) Bob Carter is a frequent guest on the Glenn Beck show (see also: hack).

[nreggie454]

I agree that the climate could be changing. However, I don't think humans are the cause of this. Granted, humans have definitely fucked up the environment in many many ways, so I am for going green.

[cwhiteboy]

Its very obvious humans have a profound effect on our surrounding environment, but; whether or not we are the actual cause of global warming is highly debatable. I'm leaning more towards the "no" side nowadays, but not really sure, as I have yet to have the time to devote to studying this subject matter.

[vinayak]

Climate Change/Global Warming what ever there calling it now is a hoax. It has been proven. Look it up if you do not believe. Falsified reports and down right lies.

[Total_Blender]

Climate Change/Global Warming what ever there calling it now is a hoax. It has been proven. Look it up if you do not believe. Falsified reports and down right lies.

Where should we look it up? The "scientists" who are opposing global warming are in the minority, and many of them are also regarded as hacks (see also: Bob Carter). Even though the Right Wing tries to manufacture dissent among scientists, the fact remains that more scientists support global warming/climate change caused by humans than not.

Fact: Your boy Bob Carter... all of his research is funded by oil companies. Also, he tries to dismiss the peer-review process used by scientific journals as unnecessary, because his peers in the scientific community all know he's a hack and refuse to endorse his work. :lmfao:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html



Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.

[vinayak]

Eric CNN won't report it as it is real news. Here I Googled it for you.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=1CO&ei=CO0gS9L_K8e0tgeTyqHjBw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAYQBSgA&q=climate+change+hack+emails&spell=1

[Total_Blender]

Eric CNN won't report it as it is real news. Here I Googled it for you.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=1CO&ei=CO0gS9L_K8e0tgeTyqHjBw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAYQBSgA&q=climate+change+hack+emails&spell=1

Of course scientists are not going to be "politically correct" in their e-mails to each other. When I talk with my friends about teabaggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_extremism) (that is the politically correct term for that movement isn't it?), I use far worse language than "idiots" so I guess this is pretty mild. :D

And the talk about controversial statistics goes back to what I said about the peer review process. Peer review is a method scientists (and other academics) use to keep themselves honest. It is accepted as part of the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Policies_of_U.S._government). It prevents published works from establishing irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal opinions. If you have something radically different, you will face opposition and I would assume they are just talking strategy on how to release the information without getting their eggs scrambled. If I were a scientist, I wouldn't want schmucks like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones misinterpreting my work and using it for their own agendas.

As a former professor of mine once said: In academia, if your work isn't published in peer-reviewed journals... you don't exist. So, show me peer-reviewed articles from global warming detractors. If the science is there to support this Glenn Beck horseshit then the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)would support it too, correct?

[bu villain]

Personally, I haven't looked at that much data on the issue but there is a pretty strong concensus among scientists that humans are having an effect on the environment which will result in warming. I generally trust the scientific community (for example they say atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons but I have never verified this for myself) so therefor I believe humans are having an effect on the climate.

Obviously its pretty much impossible to know exactly how much is human caused and how much is natural so there is a certain amount of error no matter what is said.

[Total_Blender]

I know enough about the natural cycles to know the timelines at which they move are many times longer than the warming we have experienced in the past 200 years since the start of the industrial revolution.

[PatrickH]

Total_Blender is displaying what is known as an "ad hominem" attack. Instead of attacking the arguement made by Carter, he is attacking his character by labeling him as a "hack".

[PatrickH]

Of course scientists are not going to be "politically correct" in their e-mails to each other. When I talk with my friends about teabaggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_extremism) (that is the politically correct term for that movement isn't it?), I use far worse language than "idiots" so I guess this is pretty mild. :D

And the talk about controversial statistics goes back to what I said about the peer review process. Peer review is a method scientists (and other academics) use to keep themselves honest. It is accepted as part of the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Policies_of_U.S._government). It prevents published works from establishing irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal opinions. If you have something radically different, you will face opposition and I would assume they are just talking strategy on how to release the information without getting their eggs scrambled. If I were a scientist, I wouldn't want schmucks like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones misinterpreting my work and using it for their own agendas.

As a former professor of mine once said: In academia, if your work isn't published in peer-reviewed journals... you don't exist. So, show me peer-reviewed articles from global warming detractors. If the science is there to support this Glenn Beck horseshit then the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)would support it too, correct?

You're basically saying that the ends justify the means. I just don't buy it. If the "scientists" at Cambria were on the the truth, why did they have to falsify data? Why are they refusing to release the math behind their models? To say that Beck or Jones would do more harm with the real data than they have with news of falsified data is just silly.

The peer-review method has its flaws. Its biggest flaw is that there isn't currently any expectation to look for outright fraud. Just look at the Schon debaucle a few years back.

As far as peer-reviewed studies that disprove anthroprogenic warming, there's been quite a few. Almost all of the valid data brings the theory into question. The problem is that the relevant studies didn't set out with the goal of proving/disproving man-made warmiing, so we don't hear much about them. Supporters have a lot to lose if AGW turns out to be bunk. Most of their grant money would dry up if it turned out that their work wasn't saving us from impending doom.

[vinayak]

Did I hear hack? This person comes to mind.

http://www.tri-statedefenderonline.com/articlelive/content_images/Al%20Gore_1.jpg

[BanginJimmy]

Arguing with Blender is like arguing with a magic 8 ball. All of the answers are canned directly off the dumbocrat talking points memo. He has nothing meaningful to add to any political discussion.

[MachNU]

Arguing with Blender is like arguing with a magic 8 ball. All of the answers are canned directly off the dumbocrat talking points memo. He has nothing meaningful to add to any political discussion.

8 ball can at least give 4 different answers. Bender doesnt even have that many responces. Thats why he stays out of the more important threads because with his :2cents: you can still get change back.

Now to this thread...climate change is CRAP. Its been proven that each winter EVERYWHERE is getting colder and colder as the years go by. Its also been proven that the earth does this in 100-200 year cycles. We are coming to an end of a cycle, when the earth will cool down, then in another 100-200 years it will start to get warm!

[Total_Blender]

Arguing with Blender is like arguing with a magic 8 ball. All of the answers are canned directly off the dumbocrat talking points memo. He has nothing meaningful to add to any political discussion.

I haven't heard you say anything that Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh hasn't said the day before.

Carry on. :goodjob:

[PatrickH]

Here's a few fun facts for you. In the past, due to volcanic eruptions, atmospheric CO2 levels have been as much as 10X higher than they are today. Guess what? Average temperatures are believed to have been only a few degrees higher than they are today. Additionally, life was flourishing.

[Total_Blender]

Here's a few fun facts for you. In the past, due to volcanic eruptions, atmospheric CO2 levels have been as much as 10X higher than they are today. Guess what? Average temperatures are believed to have been only a few degrees higher than they are today. Additionally, life was flourishing.

But think about the kids of life that flourished during those times... atmospheric C02 levels rising are usually followed by mass extinctions. While life might have "flourished" in that the Earth was still densely populated with living creatures, the variety of different living creatures (biodiversity) plummets in short order.

During the Permian-Triassic extinction, it is said over 2/3 of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct, due to CO2 spikes from volcanic activity.

[PatrickH]

But think about the kids of life that flourished during those times... atmospheric C02 levels rising are usually followed by mass extinctions. While life might have "flourished" in that the Earth was still densely populated with living creatures, the variety of different living creatures (biodiversity) plummets in short order.

During the Permian-Triassic extinction, it is said over 2/3 of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct, due to CO2 spikes from volcanic activity.

Every kind of life flourished during those periods. Additionally, there is a difference between correlation and cause/effect. I challenge you to show any evidence that CO2 has ever been responsible for even mild extinction. Those extinctions were caused by things like volcanic ash, reduced sunlight, etc. The CO2 was never responsible.

[Total_Blender]

. I challenge you to show any evidence that CO2 has ever been responsible for even mild extinction. Those extinctions were caused by things like volcanic ash, reduced sunlight, etc. The CO2 was never responsible.

Actually, Co2 is the driving force behind oceanic extinctions, because marine animals can't process as much co2 through their bodies as terrestrial animals, especially the marine single celled photosynthetic organisms that produce much of the world's oxygen and are also the main food source of many species of larger animals. And reduced marine biodiversity is usually followed by reduced terrestrial diversity.

[PatrickH]

Wrong again. Ask yourself what those single-celled, oxygen-producing creatures process...CO2. If you were right, why are scientists proposing these very creatures as a means to scrub CO2?

The facts are the facts. The specific eruption to which I referred earlier produced atmospheric CO2 levels 10X higher than they are today. During, and shortly after that eruption, the fossil records indicate that life of all types flourished atleast until the point where levels returned to normal.

[bu villain]

For those of you who do not think humans are causing climate change, please answer these three questions. I am very curious to hear your answers:

1. Do the majority of climate scientists state that humans are a cause of global climate change?
2. Do you think you understand the data better than climate scientists do?
3. Do you think scientists generally can be trusted?

[PatrickH]

1) I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but there are more detractors than typically mentioned by the media. A large number of the scientists mentioned as supporting AGW are not climate scientists, but rather geologists, anthropologists, etc. Many aren't even scientists, but rather politicians. It doesn't really matter. Consensus is NOT science. Let's not forget that the scientific consensus was once that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

2) Absolutely not. However, I have a very good BS detector and know when something doesn't follow. It doesn't take a climate scientist to be skeptical of theories supported by models that use selective data.

3) Less and less so, due to the desire to retain funding.

[BanginJimmy]

For those of you who do not think humans are causing climate change, please answer these three questions. I am very curious to hear your answers:

1. Do the majority of climate scientists state that humans are a cause of global climate change?
2. Do you think you understand the data better than climate scientists do?
3. Do you think scientists generally can be trusted?


1. Climate scientists by definition have an agenda. As we have seen with Climate-Gate, they arent above selective use of data to support their hypotheses,

2. You dont have to fully understand the data to be skeptical. You simply have to look at those that are pushing it hardest. Namely those with something to profit from it. I.E. Al Gore. His company stands to profit massively by running the exchange for carbon credits if cap and trade passes.

3. Hell no. They have an agenda and as I stated in my first answer, they will selectively use data to fit their own ideas, not the other way around like it is supposed to be.

[ahabion]

For those of you who do not think humans are causing climate change, please answer these three questions. I am very curious to hear your answers:

1. Do the majority of climate scientists state that humans are a cause of global climate change?
2. Do you think you understand the data better than climate scientists do?
3. Do you think scientists generally can be trusted?

1. Yes.

2. No, but the same is true of weather people. Where they can be totally wrong, be paid for it and not ever be held accountable if they are wrong.

3. Depends on the issue and what that scientist specializes in.

There was is also a great series of audio clips that are on the Michael Smerconish morning show: http://www.mastalk.com/audio.php

Check it out... brings a happy medium to the whole thing about it AND offers the same exact questions to two opposing scientific views... One doctor from Texas Tech (if i remember correctly... could be wrong) and the other from MIT (Mass. Institute of Technology).

[Total_Blender]

1.) yes, the majority of scientists support the climate change models.

2.) I'm not a climate scientist, but I know a little about how the Earth warms and cools over geological timelines that last millions of years. I trust what I understand of the science better than I trust the interpretations of talk-radio hosts or Fox news "entertainers".

3.) The consenus of Scientists can generally be trusted, now that the scientific method is established and the process is more empirical. Its true that at one point in time, before the practice of "science" as we know it today, those who could be compared to scientists thought the Earth was the center of the universe, that the Earth was only 6,000 years old, etc. But the discoveries of a round Earth, that revolved around the sun and was pushing 5 billion years old were brought forth by scientists, against the protests of "conservative" types who had much to gain by preserving the order of things the way it was. While the scientists in favor of climate change may have a stake in grants and carbon credits, the opposition has its own stake in the future of the fossil fuel industry.

[bu villain]

Thanks for the honest answers. It seems from this very unscientific inquiry that how you feel about climate change is pretty much directly tied to how much you trust the proponents of it. The first question seems to have little to no bearing on peoples feelings and the second one is almost universally "No".

I would like to point out that what you think about a person's motives should not be used to argue whether they are right or wrong. Arguments (especially scientific) should be based on facts only. This is true for Al Gore, Sean Hannity, or anyone else.