Global Warming Conclusively Linked To Human
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">activity, says study.</div> <a href='http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=9563&channel=0' target='_blank'>http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=9563&channel=0</a>
<a href='http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20050218-9999-7m18ocean.html' target='_blank'>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science...-7m18ocean.html</a>
<a href='http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/212606_warming18.html' target='_blank'>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/212606_warming18.html</a>
<a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html</a>
Any guesses on how Bush is going to dismiss this?
<a href='http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20050218-9999-7m18ocean.html' target='_blank'>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science...-7m18ocean.html</a>
<a href='http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/212606_warming18.html' target='_blank'>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/212606_warming18.html</a>
<a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html</a>
Any guesses on how Bush is going to dismiss this?
Comments
Time to fire up the genocide machine.
Why would he dismiss it? And why did you single HIM out? <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I singled Bush out because his approach to the issue in the past has been less than scientific.
yes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you capable of accepting that recent human activity might be causing global warming...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes. Are you capable of accepting that gas bubbles extracted from the Antarctic show that prehistoric man initiated the process? Or, that climate change is constant and the recent minimal variations are normal in comparison to the last few million years? Or (gasp!) that humans have such a small fraction of an effect that nothing we do will alter the process?
EDIT: Or, that any group of eggheads will do whatever it takes to renew their government grant funding and generate their own job security regardless of the cost?
yes. Are you capable of accepting that gas bubbles extracted from the Antarctic show that prehistoric man initiated the process? Or, that climate change is constant and the recent minimal variations are normal in comparison to the last few million years? Or (gasp!) that humans have such a small fraction of an effect that nothing we do will alter the process? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article you linked to on gas bubbles was showing nothing more than correlation. Gas bubbles in the artic indicate increased levels of carbon dioxide around the time that humans might have started to have a substantial effect on the climate. Correlation != causation. The scientists who conducted that study know this, and considered it no more than "a great new idea we need to talk about and evaluate." You are giving it more weight than the scientists that conducted the study.
We have here a brand new study giving us pretty convincing evidence of a causative relationship, and all you can say is that other people came to different conclusions in the past? What you are doing at the moment is basically FUD. A lot of people have said different things, so therefore regardless of any new information, there's still way too much uncertainty to say anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT: Or, that any group of eggheads will do whatever it takes to renew their government grant funding and generate their own job security regardless of the cost?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't trust this study because it was conducted by scientists?
Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't trust this study because it was conducted by scientists? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this group told you that there was no direct connection between humans and global climate change would you believe them?
Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't trust this study because it was conducted by scientists? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this group told you that there was no direct connection between humans and global climate change would you believe them? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course I would, with the usual caveats of ensuring peer review etc.
You didn't answer my question.
Because at every singly global warming convention, America has always been the country to withdraw from the talks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He said that this breakthrough evidence must not be ignored by world leaders, especially those currently not putting climate change at the top of their agenda, like best friend to the polluting industries President Bush and Australian Premier John Howard.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im sure they don't have an agenda <--sarcasm
When I hear scientist saying crap like this, it makes me just a skeptical about their findings as those who take the funding from businesses.
Have they published any of their models or findings yet?
I question the motivation of any group whose survivability is grounded solidly on receiving government grants. And yes, that includes military projects.
Because at every singly global warming convention, America has always been the country to withdraw from the talks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me if my knowledge is a little dated, but last I remember;
They want to heavily regulate large countries, while the little ones are free to polute to their hearts content. This is no way to solve the problem.
Of course. That's how science works.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said on
Thursday climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not
even there.
"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.
His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
to calculate steady ocean warming.
"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.
The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental
pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global
warming is occurring and is caused by people.
Barnett urged U.S. officials to reconsider.
"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I question the motivation of any group whose survivability is grounded solidly on receiving government grants. And yes, that includes military projects.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why even bother questioning their motivation? Their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with their results. That's how science works. If you have a problem with their methodology bring it up.
Here in lies the problem with that mentality.
Most larger nations already regulate pollution, while smaller nations do not. This really hurt the US Steel market. Now when you put more regulations on these countries, you are going to drive what facctories are left to other smaller nations where regulations are not a strict. This would be a devestating hit on the economy on any nation. With less regulations in the smaller countries where these businesses are relocating, you would end up with more polution.
The problem with the global warming convention is how they are going about analyzing the problem. You cannot look at this problem in a purely scientific method.
Most larger nations already regulate pollution, while smaller nations do not. This really hurt the US Steel market. Now when you put more regulations on these countries, you are going to drive what facctories are left to other smaller nations where regulations are not a strict. This would be a devestating hit on the economy on any nation. With less regulations in the smaller countries where these businesses are relocating, you would end up with more polution.
The problem with the global warming convention is how they are going about analyzing the problem. You cannot look at this problem in a purely scientific method. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, it would make more sense to make the regulations the same because that happens, but is that reason enough to just NOT reduce emissions, purely because of that?
Because at every singly global warming convention, America has always been the country to withdraw from the talks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I resemble that statement and demand proof! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Of course. That's how science works.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said on
Thursday climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not
even there.
"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.
His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
to calculate steady ocean warming.
"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.
The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental
pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global
warming is occurring and is caused by people.
Barnett urged U.S. officials to reconsider.
"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I question the motivation of any group whose survivability is grounded solidly on receiving government grants. And yes, that includes military projects.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why even bother questioning their motivation? Their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with their results. That's how science works. If you have a problem with their methodology bring it up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I mean is it on the internet.
How can a question their findings?
How can you so quickly dismiss what Spooge posted?
When you have an agenda going into research, believe it or not it can effect the data that you collect and the way you interpret it. So yes, motivation has a lot to do with it. Im not dismissing the findings, nor am I accepting it. What I was saying is that when you make statements like he did, you don't help yourself. Alls you succeed in doing is having yourself questioned.
I personally believe we have something to do with global warming and should do something about it. I do not agree with any of the metods suggested to solve it, other than alternative fuel sources and nuclear power.
Most larger nations already regulate pollution, while smaller nations do not. This really hurt the US Steel market. Now when you put more regulations on these countries, you are going to drive what facctories are left to other smaller nations where regulations are not a strict. This would be a devestating hit on the economy on any nation. With less regulations in the smaller countries where these businesses are relocating, you would end up with more polution.
The problem with the global warming convention is how they are going about analyzing the problem. You cannot look at this problem in a purely scientific method. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, it would make more sense to make the regulations the same because that happens, but is that reason enough to just NOT reduce emissions, purely because of that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow everytime I post something, I have to respond.
Im not sure as to how far in the United States get into the talks before they withdraw from the talks, are you? It is possible that they are trying to work with something, but the other nations are not. This is politics, the bad guy is not always who it appears to be.
<a href='http://www.reason.com/rb/rb071603.shtml' target='_blank'>Reason Online <i>Conflicted Science</i></a>
Would you say the same thing about Industry funded research? (I would)
Conflict of interest is smeared all over research groups. I'm not the one proclaiming the "Conclusiveness" of global warming's link to humans. Where is your peer review? Where is the analysis of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography's funding for this research project? Who stands to benefit financially/politically from this research? Who faces financial/political detriment from this research?
Let's allow the scientific community as a whole dig through every aspect of these studies before we start screaming "Conclusiveness".
Naturally. But if we can't come up with substantial criticism, we should be prepared to accept the results. Furthermore, if I myself can't come up with substantial criticism, I'm going to tentatively accept the results, until I hear well supported criticism from another source.
My point is that you aren't done just by questioning motivation. Its not enough to just show a conflict of interest. You have to show both a conflict of interest, and that the interpretation of the data or the data collection methods were faulty. You have to be prepared to divorce the information from its source.
Well all I know that is either all of Europe or the vast majority agree to it, whilst America pulls out. America being the major industrial player in the world, it'll be hard to have a global emmissions reduction without America joining in. Not to like.. diss you or anything, I'm just stating the truth.
Extrapolate that over to this "increase" in temperature - and humans are responsible for ~.01 of a degree in change (actual math not applied). Now this change is supposed to be "horrendous" and "bad" - explain that to me.
Ok, on a similar note, lets assume that the earth is warming, and we are playing some part in that. Now, I believe, it is the scientists job to convince me that this warming is "not supposed to happen" - which it probably is.
a quote from the site that spooge pointed out:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keoto is simply world wide socialism with an excuse. I'm glad were not in it - there is no compelling reson. The science behind global warming is 1/2 assed at best, skewed in its reasoning and outright lying most of the time.
1-2% can still cause some big changes. What if, say, 1-2% of the ice in the polar regions melted? How do you think coastal regions would feel about the oceans raising several feet in height?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> quote from the site that spooge pointed out:
QUOTE
Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spooge's link referenced The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. When he cites an impartial scientific study, then we should believe him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keoto is simply world wide socialism with an excuse. I'm glad were not in it - there is no compelling reson. The science behind global warming is 1/2 assed at best, skewed in its reasoning and outright lying most of the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Before you make statements like this, maybe you should stop referencing conservative think tanks, and look up some reputable sources.
And what the hell does Kyoto have to do with socialism?
I've googled for it, but all the links talk about what the treaty is meant to do/discuss the fact that America hasn't joined, and don't give details about how it's meant to work. If someone has such a link, I'd be more than grateful.
Find an impartial scientific study and I'll show you the same study is influenced financially/politically in one way or the other.
Moultano and I agree here that <u>factual science</u> (not truthful science) needs to be continually verified by multiple tests and sources to be considered legitimate.
As it stands, in my opinion, there is too much junk science out there to pinpoint cause for climate changes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what the hell does Kyoto have to do with socialism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Money.
Kyoto isn't wealth distribution. Here is what it does:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Kyoto Protocol commits the developed nations to reducing their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride -- by at least 5% of 1990 levels by 2012. The European Union, along with Switzerland and most Central and East European states, will cut emissions by 8%; the United States by 7%; and Canada, Hungary, Japan and Poland by 6%. Russia, New Zealand and Ukraine must stabilize their emissions, while Norway is allowed an increase of 1%, Australia 8% and Iceland 10%. The six gases will be combined in a basket, with reductions in individual gases translated into "CO2 equivalents" that are then added up to produce a single figure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see any wealth redistribution there.