Bush changes position on Global Warming

[red states rule]

Global warming denialists are a dying breed. Honestly, I think the only reason they continue to deny it is because of ego. They're emotionally-invested in denying global warming: they've spent the last 20 years trying to deny it.

I can remember that in the 1990s, denialists were saying that there was NO long-term warming trend.

Then a few years ago they started saying, yeah well maybe there is a warming trend, but man has nothing to do with it.

Next, they'll be saying that maybe man has a little to do with it, but let the free market take care of it.


Basically, their argument changes all the time.

In the 70's we were told about the coming ice age

In the 90's it was global warming

Now it is global climate change

Will the enviro wackos please pick one lie and stick with it?

 

[maineman]

In the 70's we were told about the coming ice age

In the 90's it was global warming

Now it is global climate change

Will the enviro wackos please pick one lie and stick with it?

do you have any "facts" to back up your suggestion that people are lying about global warming?

do you think the amount of research that supports your contention overwhelms the research that would support global warming and human's impact on it?

 

[red states rule]

do you have any "facts" to back up your suggestion that people are lying about global warming?

do you think the amount of research that supports your contention overwhelms the research that would support global warming and human's impact on it?

The wackos can't get the title to their crisis right

They keep changing it every ten years

I remember a liberal SS teacher in HS, holding a copy of Newsweek with the cover story warning us about global COOLING - that was in 1975

 

[maineman]

The wackos can't get the title to their crisis right

They keep changing it every ten years

I remember a liberal SS teacher in HS, holding a copy of Newsweek with the cover story warning us about global COOLING - that was in 1975

so...no facts, eh?

why not just quit spinning and say so?

 

[Bern80]

so...no facts, eh?

why not just quit spinning and say so?

This will somewhat be respons to your PM as well.

I agree that whether or not global warming exists we should do what we can to protect the environment. Again what I have read makes a better case for the idea that the warming trend we are seeing now is part of a natural cycle. They also note that if teh cycle is any indicator its gonna continue to get warmer for the next 400 yrs or so. It also points out some of the ommissions in the data presented for the man mafe theory.

But you do have to ask yourself why is the man made theory being pushed so hard in light of the evidence that man really has very little do with it? Two reasons that I can think of: one being the junk science theory. I noted this another thread where Truthmatters was claiming teh economy performed better under dem congresses. The similarity between that and the man made global warming theory is that in both cases someone did no more than take two events occurring at the same time and made teh leap that one casused the other. Because the economy performed well while dems had the majority dems must have caused the economy to do well right? Because we have become exponentially more industrialized over the past 100 yrs and the climat has gone up on avg over the past 100 yrs well industrialization must have caused the climate to change right?

I want to make it very clear that people should be stewards of the environment. We've all seen pictures of filthy rivers and garbage strewn beaches. I am arguing against one specific theory and that is man made global warming.

 

[maineman]

This will somewhat be respons to your PM as well.

I agree that whether or not global warming exists we should do what we can to protect the environment. Again what I have read makes a better case for the idea that the warming trend we are seeing now is part of a natural cycle. They also note that if teh cycle is any indicator its gonna continue to get warmer for the next 400 yrs or so. It also points out some of the ommissions in the data presented for the man mafe theory.

But you do have to ask yourself why is the man made theory being pushed so hard in light of the evidence that man really has very little do with it? Two reasons that I can think of: one being the junk science theory. I noted this another thread where Truthmatters was claiming teh economy performed better under dem congresses. The similarity between that and the man made global warming theory is that in both cases someone did no more than take two events occurring at the same time and made teh leap that one casused the other. Because the economy performed well while dems had the majority dems must have caused the economy to do well right? Because we have become exponentially more industrialized over the past 100 yrs and the climat has gone up on avg over the past 100 yrs well industrialization must have caused the climate to change right?

I want to make it very clear that people should be stewards of the environment. We've all seen pictures of filthy rivers and garbage strewn beaches. I am arguing against one specific theory and that is man made global warming.

what YOU have read? and what if, for some reason, the next fifteen articles you read on the subject were totally supportive of human accelerated global warming? would that change your mind? Even though there were 15000 articles that you had not read?

and I find it hard to believe that the preponderance of evidence for global warming is ALL driven by some political agenda, and that small percentage of evidence that goes against that theory is pure as the driven snow.

 

[Bern80]

what YOU have read? and what if, for some reason, the next fifteen articles you read on the subject were totally supportive of human accelerated global warming? would that change your mind? Even though there were 15000 articles that you had not read?

If you're asking if the volume of articles, in of itself, in support of man made global warming would change my mind the answer is no. It would only take one convincing article one way or the other. So far what I have read in support of the natural cycle theory is more convincing then man made theory, primarily because it debunks many of the notions that the man made theory is dependeant on for validity. For example, one component that would need to be true for the man made theory to be valid is that an increase in CO2 levels is followed by an increase in temperature. the argument being that as more CO2 spewing cars and factories have been created in the last 100 years a temperature increase has followed. The research I have read claims this is not the case. The evidence shows that the opposite is true. A rise in avg. temperature is followed by increased CO2 levels in of itself. Which at the very least suggests that the CO2 build up is not caused predominatly by human activity and at most suggests that a temperature increase alone is the cause.

If you go back and look at the research for the man made theory I think you will notice something. That is most of the research is about how the climate is changeing. There is little of it that gets to why the climate is changing. No one is in disagreement that the planet is getting warmer. In fact it is the natural cycle theory that makes teh more solid claim that there is nothing man can do to reverse the current warming trend. According to that argument we could cut CO2 ommission to zero tomorrow and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. The disagreement is on why it's happening.

and I find it hard to believe that the preponderance of evidence for global warming is ALL driven by some political agenda,

Never said it was, why are you even bothering with this? I simply responded to your claim that it made sense to you that because we have become more industrialized we must be having an impact on climate. On teh very surface that may make sense. Those two things happened concurrently, but concurrance does not equal causality. to make that leap form concurrance to causilty with little, no, or poor research to back it up is called junk science.

Just go read the book and when finished I would love to hear your opinions as to the politcal machinations behind it.

 

[red states rule]

do you have any "facts" to back up your suggestion that people are lying about global warming?

do you think the amount of research that supports your contention overwhelms the research that would support global warming and human's impact on it?

Is it my fault the kook left keeps changing the title of their crises and what is "causing" the crisis?

Evey ten years or so, the enviro wackos make excuses as to whay their doom and gloom message has to be updated to fit the current weather going on

 

[DeadCanDance]

1) There's virtually no peer-reviewed science that "debunks" human induced global warming. There are opinion pieces from think tanks and published in popular media outlets, that allege the issue is still up in the air. As far as peer-reviewed research science, there is really no debate to speak of. Human-induced climate change is one of the most firmly established scientific facts of the last thirty years.


2) Denialists like to drag out the temporal correlation between warming and CO2: that the ice core record shows a slight lag between temperature rise and CO2. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the science. No real climate scientist has claimed that CO2, in and of itself, is responsible to temperature rise. Temperature rise is a complex function of many factors. What CO2 does, is act as an amplifier. Amplifying and accelerating warming trends. In short, CO2 is an amplifier, not a sole cause of global warming.

 

[Bern80]

1) There's virtually no peer-reviewed science that "debunks" human induced global warming. There are opinion pieces from think tanks and published in popular media outlets, that allege the issue is still up in the air. As far as peer-reviewed research science, there is really no debate to speak of. Human-induced climate change is one of the most firmly established scientific facts of the last thirty years.

This is a patently false statement. I'm not sure how you can even make such an idiotic claim. I will reccomend the same book to you, "unstoppable Global Warming" and you can go through the peer reviewed sources that they site.

2) Denialists like to drag out the temporal correlation between warming and CO2: that the ice core record shows a slight lag between temperature rise and CO2. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the science.

Then help me understand smart guy. What is the misunderstanding? No one is denying anything. If anything you are the denialists because you are denying that their is any other possible explanation for the warming trend. If the evidence eventually shows that humans are the predominant soruce of the climate trend fine by me.

No real climate scientist has claimed that CO2, in and of itself, is responsible to temperature rise. Temperature rise is a complex function of many factors. What CO2 does, is act as an amplifier. Amplifying and accelerating warming trends. In short, CO2 is an amplifier, not a sole cause of global warming.

That would seem to be a bit of contradiction to your first parapgraph saying that no one has debunked human induced global warming. Here you say it is a complex system yet in the first paragraph you basically claim their positively no other explanation for the climate change.

 

[Gunny]

Global warming denialists are a dying breed. Honestly, I think the only reason they continue to deny it is because of ego. They're emotionally-invested in denying global warming: they've spent the last 20 years trying to deny it.

I can remember that in the 1990s, denialists were saying that there was NO long-term warming trend.

Then a few years ago they started saying, yeah well maybe there is a warming trend, but man has nothing to do with it.

Next, they'll be saying that maybe man has a little to do with it, but let the free market take care of it.


Basically, their argument changes all the time.

I'm not sure it's a matter of denying global warming as it is the cause(s) of global warming.

I find it rather hillarious ... and dumb ... that people think they can alter what possibly could be just a cyclical trend in the Earth's temperature. They can't even identify what actually is causing, but they've got all these "cures."

 

[DeadCanDance]

This is a patently false statement. I'm not sure how you can even make such an idiotic claim. I will reccomend the same book to you, "unstoppable Global Warming" and you can go through the peer reviewed sources that they site.




Then help me understand smart guy. What is the misunderstanding? No one is denying anything. If anything you are the denialists because you are denying that their is any other possible explanation for the warming trend. If the evidence eventually shows that humans are the predominant soruce of the climate trend fine by me.



That would seem to be a bit of contradiction to your first parapgraph saying that no one has debunked human induced global warming. Here you say it is a complex system yet in the first paragraph you basically claim their positively no other explanation for the climate change.

Let me make this simple for you: CO2 doesn't drive climate change. No real scientist has ever said that. But CO2 does amplify and accelerate heating treands. And greenhouse gasses from human activities, are amplifying and accelerating the normal variations and patterns in climate. FACT.


And please. The book you cite as a reputable peer-reviewed source? Surely you jest. It took me 30 seconds on google to find out who wrote this book: Fred Singer.

Who is Fred Singer? He's that whacky "scientist" who worked for tobacco companies on their payroll, and was one of the leading denialists who denied a link between tobacco and cancer. He's not even a climate scientist, to boot.


Third, EVERY major scientific body on the planet agrees with me. From the National Academy of Sciences, to the American Geophysical Unions, to the Ameircan Meterological Socity, to the AAAS, to the IPCC.

Please provide me ONE single major scientific body on the planet that agrees with you.

 

[Gunny]

Let me make this simple for you: CO2 doesn't drive climate change. No real scientist has ever said that. But CO2 does amplify and accelerate heating treands. And greenhouse gasses from human activities, are amplifying and accelerating the normal variations and patterns in climate. FACT.


And please. The book you cite as a reputable peer-reviewed source? Surely you jest. It took me 30 seconds on google to find out who wrote this book: Fred Singer.

Who is Fred Singer? He's that whacky "scientist" who worked for tobacco companies on their payroll, and was one of the leading denialists who denied a link between tobacco and cancer. He's not even a climate scientist, to boot.


Third, EVERY major scientific body on the planet agrees with me. From the National Academy of Sciences, to the American Geophysical Unions, to the Ameircan Meterological Socity, to the AAAS, to the IPCC.

Please provide me ONE single major scientific body on the planet that agrees with you.

Your "facts" are misleading. Common sense would dictate that "Greenhouse gasses from human activities amplifying and accelerating the normal variations and patterns in climate," but NO ONE knows how much.

Every major scientific body on the planet agrees with the agenda they are being paid to support.

 

[Bern80]

Let me make this simple for you: CO2 doesn't drive climate change. No real scientist has ever said that. But CO2 does amplify and accelerate heating treands. And greenhouse gasses from human activities, are amplifying and accelerating the normal variations and patterns in climate. FACT.


And please. The book you cite as a reputable peer-reviewed source? Surely you jest. It took me 30 seconds on google to find out who wrote this book: Fred Singer.

Who is Fred Singer? He's that whacky "scientist" who worked for tobacco companies on their payroll, and was one of the leading denialists who denied a link between tobacco and cancer. He's not even a climate scientist, to boot.


Third, EVERY major scientific body on the planet agrees with me. From the National Academy of Sciences, to the American Geophysical Unions, to the Ameircan Meterological Socity, to the AAAS, to the IPCC.

Please provide me ONE single major scientific body on the planet that agrees with you.

What he argued was a link between cancer and passive smoking. Not tobacco and cancer.

and as with any research project he gathere research form other studies. Again go read the book and look at teh sources, then you can tell me what's wrong with them. Or is it just too tough to expose yourself to a new idea?

Also of interest is that he points things that were asked to be left out of the IPCC report. Of course the things that don't support man made global wrming


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

 

[DeadCanDance]

Your "facts" are misleading. Common sense would dictate that "Greenhouse gasses from human activities amplifying and accelerating the normal variations and patterns in climate," but NO ONE knows how much.

Every major scientific body on the planet agrees with the agenda they are being paid to support.

I'll take that as a "NO", you can't provide one single major scientific body on the planet to agree with you.

I, on the other hand, can pretty much cite every single major scientific body on the planet that agrees with me: human's are influencing and accelerating climate change.

There's virtually no peer reviewed science, from actual climate scientists who publish their own field and labortory research, that disagrees that humans are impacting climate change.


I did more research on the Fred Singer and Dick Avery book, that a denialist put forth as a credible, peer-reviewed product that allegedly debuked global warming: Dick Avery is an agricultural economist. Not a scientist. Fred Singer is a well known hack, who took money from tobacco companies and denied a link between cancer and tobacco smoke. In addition, evidently the authors of several of the studies Singer and Avery cite to debunk global warming, actually support the concept of anthropogenic global warming.


Hint: If you're going to cite studies in an attempt to "debunk" global warming, you better make sure the authors of the peer reviewed papers your citing agree with you.

 

[DeadCanDance]

What he argued was a link between cancer and passive smoking. Not tobacco and cancer.

and as with any research project he gathere research form other studies. Again go read the book and look at teh sources, then you can tell me what's wrong with them. Or is it just too tough to expose yourself to a new idea?

Also of interest is that he points things that were asked to be left out of the IPCC report. Of course the things that don't support man made global wrming

Both the World Health Organization, the US Environmental Protecton Agency, and the U.S. Surgeon General, classify second hand tobacco smoke as a known carcinogen.

Who you gonna believe? Them? Or Fred Singer.


Please. This is embarrasing. Citing Fred Singer, and an agricultrual economist (the authors of your book), as credible "peer-reviewed" authors who debunk global warming, doesn't pass the laugh test.

like i said, there virtually no peer-reviewed scientific research that disagrees that humans activities are in large part, to blame for global warming.

 

[Bern80]

Both the World Health Organization, the US Environmental Protecton Agency, and the U.S. Surgeon General, classify second hand tobacco smoke as a known carcinogen.

Who you gonna believe? Them? Or Fred Singer.


Please. This is embarrasing. Citing Fred Singer, and an agricultrual economist (the authors of your book), as credible "peer-reviewed" authors who debunk global warming, doesn't pass the laugh test.

like i said, there virtually no peer-reviewed scientific research that disagrees that humans activities are in large part, to blame for global warming.

it's laughable that you aren't listening. I never claimed they did the research. What they did is compile a bunch of other peer reviewed research into a book. They are simply presenting other people's data.

 

[Gunny]

I'll take that as a "NO", you can't provide one single major scientific body on the planet to agree with you.

Odd, I didn't know I was supposed to.

I, on the other hand, can pretty much cite every single major scientific body on the planet that agrees with me: human's are influencing and accelerating climate change.

Do try to clean the crud from your ears and go back and re-read my post and explain to me what I said that disagrees with your statement.

I only disagree with your implication that human influence and acceleration are more of a factor than can be proven. Most certainly humans impact the environment. Duh.

That STILL does not preclude the cause being a cyclical cliamte change.

There's virtually no peer reviewed science, from actual climate scientists who publish their own field and labortory research, that disagrees that humans are impacting climate change.

I did more research on the Fred Singer and Dick Avery book, that a denialist put forth as a credible, peer-reviewed product that allegedly debuked global warming: Dick Avery is an agricultural economist. Not a scientist. Fred Singer is a well known hack, who took money from tobacco companies and denied a link between cancer and tobacco smoke. In addition, evidently the authors of several of the studies Singer and Avery cite to debunk global warming, actually support the concept of anthropogenic global warming.


Hint: If you're going to cite studies in an attempt to "debunk" global warming, you better make sure the authors of the peer reviewed papers your citing agree with you.

Are you done telling me how smart you think you are? You're obviously not as bright as you think you are, nor as well researched as you claim. If you were, you would have probably noticed, that I didn't disagree with the general premise that humans have an impact on global warming, nor have I ever stated global doesn't exist, and THAT information is readily-available in THIS thread. Need a link?

 

[Gunny]

it's laughable that you aren't listening. I never claimed they did the research. What they did is compile a bunch of other peer reviewed research into a book. They are simply presenting other people's data.

His cup runneth over ....

 

[DeadCanDance]

it's laughable that you aren't listening. I never claimed they did the research. What they did is compile a bunch of other peer reviewed research into a book. They are simply presenting other people's data.

The authors Singer and Avery offer us evidently don't think their research casts any doubt on anthropogenic global warming. In short, Singer and Avery are misrepresenting the conclusions of the scientists, and substituting their own conclusions.

I can't post a URL yet, but go to realclimate.org (a site run by real climate scientists) and search on "fred singer" or avery