An Inconvenient Truth

[nube]

Christ, with all the money that the media has, they can't buy a weather forecaster that can accurately predict more than about 3 days into the future!

And these cocksuckers have the nerve to tell us what will be in 50, 100, 500 years?

Give me a break!

- A Denier and proud of it.

NOW ain't that the truth, I rely on the weather forecast for my job. I can tell you that there is an 65% chance that they will be WRONG. I've seen weather forecasts that were saying on the Enviro Canada site at 11;00, that there was a 30% chance of flurries and at 11;30 we had 6" of snow on the ground.


It seems that with all the new technology, they are LESS accurate now then they were years ago. My DEFENCE for them is that maybe the weather IS harder to predict - which either suggests something is radically changing, our we really don't have a handle on the weather - might as well read the Farmers Almanac

 

[threepeat]

Great reply aznboi9

I already posted a rebuttal article to that article, Randy. Btw, you can't make a comparison between one study vs a consensus report. And solar radiation is already included in the IPCC report as a contributing factor to global warming.



Are you kidding me? It's a summary report; if you want references, go to IPCC website that has a list of the publications and technical reports that provided the information for the summary. References are listed in the ones that I took a look at.

What more do you want? You are asking for a level of proof that no branch of science could possibly fulfill. If you are going to reject the findings of the IPCC based on the fact that you haven't read each and every study personally, then you are going to have to also reject evolution, the big bang and pretty much every scientific theory that's ever been made in the history of mankind. When your doctor tells you that your kid (if you have one) needs to get vaccinated, do ask him to list all the studies that have been done so that you can assess them all personally? Or do you take trust in the fact that the studies have been reviewed by qualified authorities and that the appropriate recommendations have been made based on the evidence available? (But wait, this website says they aren't effective and this one says they cause death. Vaccine science is still not settled!). I also find it ironic that you guys are so distrustful of people whom, from what I've heard, are world authorities on climate science working in a peer-reviewed process, yet are so willing to put all belief on blogs and internet websites where no level of checks for veracity exists. You cannot have it both ways.

The fact is is that we place a certain level of trust on those who are considered to be experts in fields of study that we are not knowledgeable in. Are they always right? Of course not. Biologists used to think that DNA was a linear strand of proteins. No scientific conclusion is ever made with 100% certainty. But you do the best with the information that is available. If new information is discovered that causes you to rethink that fine. That's just science.

I'm done.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the argument that if Al Gore takes an SUV to his lectures that means that climate change doesn't exist. I guess the next time I see a doctor not washing their hands it will mean that there's no such thing as germs.

 

[logsplitter]

The polar ice caps on Mars have also been shrinking for the last 20 years. There it is attributed to increased solar radiation (heat).

We really do need to understand whether we are causing this global warming or whether it is part of a natural cycle as some scientists are cautioning!

I apoligize if this has already been posted. This thread is simply too long to look through.

 

[citylover]

With high ammounts of CO2 in our atomosphere or planet heats up exponetionally. I'm not saying theres anyway to stop it... its purely an undeniable fact that its happening.

That can't be true, it sounds suspiciously close as to coming from a "text book" that must have escaped the book burnings. & we don't accept accepted science in this debate in any case. Next you'll be telling us the world ain't flat.

And how many scientists have you got to sign onto your statement? & since any getting money from the oil industry won't sign onto it, it must be false.

Even if you show a lot sign onto it, they're nothing, because that is an infinitesimal amount when compared to the number of people calling into American Idol each week (that is after I did a scientific screening out of calls from Canada, Mexico, and British Samoa)

More importantly, why is Al Gore not running for the presidency on the Gashouse Party ticket? Now ideological morons have to learn some new names to hate. And some of them are REALLY hard to pronounce. It's sad, just so sad.

We're EXXON. At, EXXON, we don't care, we don't have to care. We're EXXON.

 

[Damaged]

That can't be true, it sounds suspiciously close as to coming from a "text book" that must have escaped the book burnings. & we don't accept accepted science in this debate in any case. Next you'll be telling us the world ain't flat.

And how many scientists have you got to sign onto your statement? & since any getting money from the oil industry won't sign onto it, it must be false.

Even if you show a lot sign onto it, they're nothing, because that is an infinitesimal amount when compared to the number of people calling into American Idol each week (that is after I did a scientific screening out of calls from Canada, Mexico, and British Samoa)

More importantly, why is Al Gore not running for the presidency on the Gashouse Party ticket? Now ideological morons have to learn some new names to hate. And some of them are REALLY hard to pronounce. It's sad, just so sad.

We're EXXON. At, EXXON, we don't care, we don't have to care. We're EXXON.

Citylover is just another clueless troll who has nothing better to do than write meaningless posts to get a reaction from people. Best bet is to ignore this twit. Does anyone actually understand what he writes?

 

[chilli]

It's amazing how some people never learn from history.

10 yrs ago the biggest names in the tobacco industry stood in front of congress and said that no one had been able to prove that smoking was the cause of anything.

Well we all know that each and everyone of them lied.

So what makes this any different?

Get your heads out of the sand, "experts" with political agenda's lie all the time.

You don't need facts to prove global warming, it's called common sense.

Use it.

 

[sdw]

Cynical Calculation

The problem with the hypocrites like Gore is that they exclude any evidence that would lead to a defination of the problem where the solution would not be financially rewarding to themselves.

The entire arguement is that simple.

If the problem is Solar, it can't be solved by Gore and friends and therefore Solar MUST not be the problem. However, this article states the problem very likely is Solar: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007...-guest-weblog-by-reid-a-bryson-phd-dsc-dengr/

by Professor Reid A. Bryson

...Remember Otzi, the Ice Man? The fellow that was found in the mountains between Austria and Italy a few years ago? He had been shot a little over 5000 years ago, and then covered with snow, and more snow, until a few years ago the snow melted back enough for Otzi to be found. Between his burial under snow and his exhumation by nature there was more snow and ice than before, or now. Are we just getting back to what the snow climate used to be?

When the Vikings settled part of Greenland circa 900 CE, they established a settlement that lasted longer than the United States has been around. There was a considerable amount of traffic between Greenland and Europe, by the standards of the time, so some skippers were making their first trip. The directions were, at first, to sail two and a half days west from Iceland to the shore of Greenland where there stood the landmark Blasark (black shirt) Mountain. Then sail down the coast to Eriksfjord, a beautiful broad straight passage across southern Greenland. Reaching the west coast they should turn right up the coast to the navigation marker on Herjolf’s Ness. (About “Bluie West 3”in WW II.) Turning in to Tunugdliarfik Fjord Erik’s homestead Brattahlid was only 75 miles at the end of the fjord (across from Bluie West 1, for you old timers).

After 1200 CE the directions changed. Sail one and a half days west from Iceland to the edge of the ice pack. If it is clear you might see the mountain Hvitsark to the west (snow covered now?), then go all the way down around hazardous Cap Farvel and up the other coast to Herjolf’s Ness. Eriksfjord was no longer open, nor is it now. As of a decade or so ago there were two valley glaciers blocking it from the sides. Yes, I saw them. If Greenland ice diminishes some, will we be getting back to conditions like it used to be? ...

Go to the article for the graphs and scientific information.

There is a lot of money to be made selling and buying "Carbon Coupons" and a lot of it relies on total fraud. Anybody who has been in China knows that there is nowhere in Canada or the USA where the air is as polluted. Even Port Albernie in the 1960s would have been sweet smelling. Yet, China is Carbon Bank exempt. Wow. I posted yesterday about who makes the money on that deal. Been to India lately? India also has Carbon Bank exemptions. They sell bottles of air with masks in Bombay. People who aren't used to the air need the bottles. Show me one City in Canada or the USA that is like that. The inside of a sewer tank doesn't qualify. The inside of an incinerator also doesn't gualify.

These creeps are so focused on filling their bank accounts, that they won't develop those solutions that we can use to get us past this warming period.

In the lower mainland we should have finished building rapid transit to Maple Ridge rather than a line to the airport that was already well served with transit. Since skytrain is all powered by electricity, pushing it out to Maple Ridge or even Mission would have made an impact on the heat and carbon that we put in the air.

Rather than twin the Port Mann, we could have pushed out rapid transit up the median of the Trans Canada right out to Chilliwack. Again, that would have made a real impact on the heat and carbon we put into the air.

Don't think people would use it? Put a station at 264th and watch me. I hate coming into Vancouver.

 

[therealrex]

Get your heads out of the sand, "experts" with political agenda's lie all the time.

This statement could refer to either side

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Get your heads out of the sand, "experts" with political agenda's lie all the time.

You don't need facts to prove global warming, it's called common sense.

Use it.

What about in the 60's and 70's when we were polluting the atmosphere more, exponentially more, than we are now, and the earth was COOLING, and these same scientists were screaming about the next ice age? Were they right too? Are you suggesting the soution to Global Warming would be going back to the way things were in the 60's and 70's??

The temperature, and the weather are cyclic, and right now as history has shown (thousand of years of historical data, not just the last 60 or 70 years) we are in an EXPECTED warming cycle.

Gore found a hot button to use, and it worked.. BaaAAaaHHH

Besides, according to Gore's camp, I've already done my part. They suggest FIVE flourescent lights in place of incandescent lights in every home will solve the problem.. I have SEVEN.. I've done more then my share.. what have you done?

 

[citylover]

*snicker* gawd, what brainiacs.

I take it all back, these guys spreading the company line from the oil conglomerates are the funniest things since they put screen doors on a submarine.

They HAVE to be putting us on, & I just didn't see it. Cause no one could possibly believe this drivel,

What about in the 60's and 70's when we were polluting the atmosphere more, exponentially more, than we are now

The problem with the hypocrites like Gore is that they exclude any evidence that would lead to a defination of the problem where the solution would not be financially rewarding to themselves.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

*snicker* gawd, what brainiacs.

I take it all back, these guys spreading the company line from the oil conglomerates are the funniest things since they put screen doors on a submarine.

They HAVE to be putting us on, & I just didn't see it. Cause no one could possibly believe this drivel,

Drivel? When even some of the leaders of countries participating call bullshit? Citylover what are you smoking??


Prague (dpa) - Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis, Czech media reported Friday.

Klaus told the Hospodarske noviny daily that the panel did not include "neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists."


"These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/28950.html

And for Oh to be Negative:

Let’s throw the subjective out and use “scientific evidence.”

Tell me then: Why was the highest ever recorded temperature in 1822?

Why no major hurricanes in 2006 (Gore GUARANTEED there would be catostrophic ones)?

Those glaciers everybody says are melting? They’ve been melting since the 1700s. Why is that? Conversely why are some glaciers only NOW FORMING and GROWING?

All of this talk about consensus PROVES there is no science here. Science isn’t about consensus....It is about incontrovertable proof and nothing more.

Without “proof” this is all just dogma driven politics and nothing more.

It didn’t matter that there once was a consensus that the earth was flat. The science was undeniable and established itself as fact.

Unlike the computer models that can’t seem to get the weather correct even 36 hours out.

Besides, CO2 is an element....not a pollutant. We should be more concerned with dihydride monoxide....It has claimed far more lives than CO2 ever hopes to!

 

[citylover]

I forgot to add "commie luvvers". These guys should be writing for late nite TV, their absurd comments are better than anything Jay Leno's come up w/ in weeks.

A Czech politician concerned about development at any cost (to other people) to line his own pockets is a better judge of science than world scientific opinion.

Just like the oil companies are better at judging what's best for the rest of us, no matter how much drilling ensues.

Bring on the Exxon Valdez II!

I LOVE these guys!

 

[Randy Whorewald]

I forgot to add "commie luvvers". These guys should be writing for late nite TV, their absurd comments are better than anything Jay Leno's come up w/ in weeks.

A Czech politician concerned about development at any cost (to other people) to line his own pockets is a better judge of science than world scientific opinion.

Just like the oil companies are better at judging what's best for the rest of us, no matter how much drilling ensues.

Bring on the Exxon Valdez II!

I LOVE these guys!

In case you didn't know Czechoslovakia is no longer a Communist country. In fact there are only 5 Communist countries left:

China

Cuba

Laos

Vietnam

North Korea

Ask your daddy, he'll confirm it.

 

[citylover]

Commie luvver, commie luvver - them oil company types will get into bed w/ anyone if it mean a buck for them (does this make them SPs?)

only got them East European & Russian oil interests to back youse up in your fantasy that global warming ain't happening
(if THAT'S not comedy, I don't know what is)

commie luvver, commie luvver

You are HILARIOUS!

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Your immaturity is really starting to show now C-lover.

Get your parents to read you this:

This morning the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its “Fourth Assessment Report,” but just in the form of a 12-page “Summary for Policymakers.” The report itself, about 1,600 pages, will be available only in May. The IPCC explains it needs time to “adjust” the scientific report to make it consistent with its summary.

The summary actually is a semipolitical document negotiated by delegates from 150 governments. Evidently, the IPCC, which prides itself on being strictly scientific and policy-neutral, wants to make its report politically correct.

This raises legitimate doubts about the scientific credibility of the IPCC’s conclusions. The “cleansing” of the report — and the attendant delay in publication — is also feeding wild speculation about climate catastrophes, with many leaks to compliant newspapers.

Compared to earlier reports, the “Fourth Assessment” is really quite sober, perhaps because a real scientist less given to ideology heads the effort. The summary projects slightly lower temperature increases than previous reports, for example. Also, the last report, in 2001, featured the Hockeystick, a graph that purportedly illustrated that the 20th century was “unusually warm.” Its underlying science was flawed by incorrect statistics, and apparently the IPCC now implicitly agrees, for the Hockeystick does not appear in the summary.

The IPCC’s estimates for sea-level rise are about half of previous values given. The IPCC is under attack by extremist scientists who think it is too optimistic and that the numbers should be more catastrophic. NASA scientist Jim Hansen’s sea-level value is about 20 times higher than that of the IPCC. I suppose that makes him, as well as Al Gore, a climate “contrarian.”

Notwithstanding these more restrained points, the IPCC fails to provide any real support for its key conclusion: “It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse-gas increases caused most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC ignores contrary evidence.

The whole question of anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming is central to setting any policy of climate mitigation and therefore warrants closer examination.

source:

http://www.nysun.com/article/47920

 

[aznboi9]

Ok, I lied...

Let’s throw the subjective out and use “scientific evidence.”

Tell me then: Why was the highest ever recorded temperature in 1822?

Why no major hurricanes in 2006 (Gore GUARANTEED there would be catostrophic ones)?

Those glaciers everybody says are melting? They’ve been melting since the 1700s. Why is that? Conversely why are some glaciers only NOW FORMING and GROWING?

Oh, so you found a handful of facts that don't agree with the hundreds of studies that have been reviewed? Big whoop. How do you know that they haven't already taken these contradictory studies into consideration? In fact, how do you know that these facts are not inconsistent with the IPCC report? Climate change isn't just about heating the all parts of the earth equally in a straight and linear fashion. If you paid the slightest bit of attention then you would know this. Here's a suggestion, instead of asking laypeople who obviously would not be able to answer these questions, why don't you ask an expert in field?

And sdw, stop beating the solar radiation drum already and read the godamn report for a change as I've already stated. Solar radiation is already listed as one of many non-anthropogenic factors contributing to climate change. Do you really think that 600+ scientists wouldn't have published a report without investigating other possible contributing factors? Like I said to Rod Steel, if you are so sure that one study is enough to refute hundreds, if not thousands, of others, why don't you ask a climatologist, an actual expert, their opinion on the study?

All of this talk about consensus PROVES there is no science here. Science isn’t about consensus....It is about incontrovertable proof and nothing more.

This statement is so ignorant and bereft of any understanding of the scientific process that I don't think that it's even worth addressing. I dare you to make that statement to any reputable scientist. Or tell that to your doctor the next time you see him. Or better yet, go to school. Maybe you'll learn something.

It didn’t matter that there once was a consensus that the earth was flat. The science was undeniable and established itself as fact.

Oh really, kind of like how the climate science is considered undeniable and established now?

Your immaturity is really starting to show now C-lover.

Get your parents to read you this:

http://www.nysun.com/article/47920

Ohh, an editorial. Well that just about settles everything. Not withstanding the fact that some of his arguments are just plain absurd, if you do a search on Fred Singer on the internet (you obviously consider this the gold standard of resources for scientific information and trumps all those little rags like Science and Nature) you'll be able to find links such as this and this that show that, given his past history as a lap dog for the tobacco and oil industry, his opinion will have to be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently, he believes that smoking doesn't cause cancer. In fact, they testified that there were studies that proved that smoking didn't lead to lung cancer. But wait, the EPA had all these other studies that showed that smoking DOES cause cancer. So what are they to do? Gee, I don't know maybe.... come to a consensus on what the preponderance of the evidence tells them? But then that would mean that the link between smoking and cancer is not 'science', wouldn't it? It must all just be dogma driven by politics, right?

 

[sdw]

What about in the 60's and 70's when we were polluting the atmosphere more, exponentially more, than we are now, and the earth was COOLING, and these same scientists were screaming about the next ice age? Were they right too? Are you suggesting the soution to Global Warming would be going back to the way things were in the 60's and 70's??

The temperature, and the weather are cyclic, and right now as history has shown (thousand of years of historical data, not just the last 60 or 70 years) we are in an EXPECTED warming cycle.

Gore found a hot button to use, and it worked.. BaaAAaaHHH

Besides, according to Gore's camp, I've already done my part. They suggest FIVE flourescent lights in place of incandescent lights in every home will solve the problem.. I have SEVEN.. I've done more then my share.. what have you done?

You're not an environmentalist until you use a Hummer, Suburban, Expedition or Escalade to do your 2 block milk run.

Seriously
While I think that the Global Warming is due to Solar Activity, that doesn't mean that we don't have to do anything.

The biggest difference between the 1100 - 1200s and now is population. 500 million people world wide then, 9 billion people now. Therefore the effect is going to be different. Back then the Earth could absorb the carbon and heat that human activity caused. This meant that the warming at the time didn't result in adverse effects for all the people living. Now we have 9 billion people that need transportation, lighting, heating, water, sewage disposal, farmland for food and energy for cooking. That's at least 18 times the heat and carbon dumped into the biosphere. The Earth is showing signs of stress and we do need to do what we can until we enter the next cooling cycle.

My problem with the current solutions is that they aren't. A Carbon Tax only moves money around, it doesn't stop Carbon or Heat being dumped into the biosphere.

We have to use Nuclear Power, Solar Power, Wind Power and Hydroelectric Power to cut down on the amount of fossil fuel we use.

We have to use Rail Transport and Water Transport to move goods long distances and get rid of the romance of the long haul trucker.

We have to use Rail Transport to do the daily commute and get people out of their cars. If we have to use road taxes to accomplish that, I'm all for it.

We have to encourage people to generate the base energy load for their homes themselves. This can be Solar Power in Urban Areas and Wind Power in Rural Areas. The power that people generate themselves is power the utilities don't have to generate. We can easily reduce the amount of heat that escapes with insulation. We can easily reduce the amount of heat we need to generate in the winter and the amount of cooling we need to generate in the summer by using the fact that the land your house sits on is a steady 50 degrees F or 10 degrees C once you get down 10 - 15 feet.

We have to start preventing Urban Sprawl. Alienating farmland to give people a postage stamp of personal lawn is a waste of farmland, a waste of transportation resources and a waste of energy. We are going to need that farmland when the cost of transporting food from Central America is too high for a family to support.

We have to do a much better job of waste treatment. That means actually treating our sewage before we dump it into the ocean. That means mining the current landfills. That means making the effort to seperate recyclable items out of what we put out for pickup. If we have to start billing people for how much we pickup - I'm all for it.

All of the above will help to solve the problem. Carbon Credits doesn't. Kyoto is a scam.

 

[chilli]

Or we could stop people from multiplying like rabbits.

 

[sdw]

Or we could stop people from multiplying like rabbits.

We aren't the ones that are increasing the world's population. We aren't even replacing ourselves with enough people to ensure we get the pensions and social programs that we have voted for.

The nations that have Carbon Exemptions are the same ones that are breeding like rabbits.

 

[OTBn]

All of this talk about consensus PROVES there is no science here. Science isn’t about consensus....It is about incontrovertible proof and nothing more.

This statement is so ignorant and bereft of any understanding of the scientific process that I don't think that it's even worth addressing. I dare you to make that statement to any reputable scientist. Or tell that to your doctor the next time you see him. Or better yet, go to school. Maybe you'll learn something.

aznboi9, we shouldn't expect Randy (the MSG, the "Mad Selective Googler") to appreciate the foundations and essentials of the scientific process... consensus amongst reasoned argument within competing ideas.

See Randy go... go MSG go!