Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 5 of 21
rue:
The clock is not ticking, except perhaps in your mind. If I have the time and the interest , I'll get around to answering your needlessly inane questions. This is a message board. I'm stating my opinions and not here to 'win you over' or try to impress you. It is not a concern of mine that you are impresed by me in the least. For you see, it is you, not I that has an issue. I see no reason to discuss that which isn't of any real enviromental concern, for the very reasons I've already posted.
In no way do I 'condemn science'. I have no idea where you're getting that notion from, as I have made clear that I appreciate and admire HONEST, real science, and not politically driven pseudo science. I can site specific cases where 2 highly regarded scientist in the same field , both bearing the highest of credentials and utmost respect by their peers offer up directly opposing views on a single issue. Their goals are exactly the same, to learn and understand as best they can, yet they see the same evidence in different lights. There agreements far outnumber their disagreements, but at a critical point, their views separate. This is how science works. It's not perfect, but it IS self correcting - over time. Sorry there isn't a quickie answer for all your questions, scientific discovery doesn't offer us a drive thru sevice. If you wanted fries w/ that, you'll just have to wait.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If I have the time and the interest , I'll get around to answering your needlessly inane questions.
I'll read this as, "I don't want to answer questions that will inevitably lead me to a conclusion that I don't want to admit."
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I can site specific cases [snip]
Anyone can say this. So, cite away.
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry there isn't a quickie answer for all your questions, scientific discovery doesn't offer us a drive thru sevice. If you wanted fries w/ that, you'll just have to wait.
You are aware of the history behind the scientific concensus, right? I mean, you do realize that it's been decades of an uphill battle for those that believed and then finally had enough evidence to convince even the most skeptical people on the planet, right?
Those most sckeptical being scientists. We tend to be rather sckeptical to new contravertial ideas but open enough to admit when they are true.
And I find it funny that you try to make it seem that this global warming thing just popped up out of thin air one day. At least with this comment anyway.
I got this off realclimate.org:
http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/booklet1.html
And this one:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/
From this last link you can find this one:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
That is a nice representation of an increase in average global tempurature. Here's a nice quote from the last link:
"
Nevertheless the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries. Similarly, it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.
"
Perhaps you should read and learn about what you are talking about before you form an opinion. Quite frankly, it scares me what you consider common sense.
I've also noticed that Rue, Kukoo, SoupCatcher and myself have posted links and spoken about where we've gotten our info supporting that this is happening.
Geezer has even posted a link to your own federal government that supports that global warming is happening and I posted a link from Cal. gov. the states the same. This leads to the conclusion that you are on very shaky ground saying that it isn't.
So, if you'd enlighten us with where you get your info that has kept you so very sckeptical on what the experts agree on, it'd be appreciated.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AURaptor,
Just a sampling of your global warming comments:
Quote:
Earth has seen sweeping climate changes on a global scale
the planet is greatly influenced by sun cycles, continental drift
The earth gradually cools and heats up over millions of yrs. We don't know the causes of this
You claim historic perspective. I challenged your understanding of the history you yourself referenced. There is no doubt that Earth's climate underwent large-scale, sometimes abrupt climate changes. There is a cause for that, and it doesn't apply to Earth today. You obviously don't know what it was that caused the past climate shifts you referenced.
Quote:
most of the 'findings' are nothing but inaccurate, misleading tripe
there hasn't been NEAR enough time to conclusively say (if) man's activities are affecting the global climate
I agree (with Bush) the threat of global warming is highly suspect and /or greatly exaggerated
I appreciate and admire HONEST, real science, and not politically driven pseudo science.
You dismiss the science simply because it doesn't square with your notions. You have no analysis on which to base your opinions. They rest on personal bias.
Quote:
can't blame ANY of it on mankind at ALL
there's no need for alarm
politics can influence one's perspective
politically driven pseudo science
Have you looked in the mirror lately for politically driven pseudo-science?
I'd also like to point out that the international scientific community is not funded the same way the US scientific community is funded, nor is it driven by US-internal considerations. The international scientific community has been working on this for decades, struggling to come to a conclusion: compiling over a century of maritime data (mean sea temperatures), drilling ice cores all over the planet, monitoring greenhouse gases, studying the effects of tropical forests, noting the decline of boreal forests around the globe, measuring the shrinking of both polar ice caps as well as glaciers around the world, using expensive supercomputer time to model the climate ... and more. Of all the things one can profitably discuss about global warming, the fact that the Earth IS warmer is not one of them. And yet you are so narrow-minded and provincial, you can look at a 30 year global effort of competing research teams, and think that it's all a recent political scam (politically driven pseudo science) to get Bush. Sheesh.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue:
No, I dismiss them for the very valid reasons I stated, not your self reinforcing spin.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@Rue:
I find it interesting that we've both posed very good questions to AURaptor that he refuses to answer.
I also find it interesting that we've supported our opinions about this with links to various sites and documents that AURaptor refuses to even address. He's even refused to do the same.
I've even gone so far to assume that this global warming is all just nonsense and was still gave a list of reasons why we should adopt the same enviornmental conservationist mentality. Something else that he didn't comment on.
We've both confronted him and said, give me links. Give me the science that you so adamantly defend. And he has failed to produce one single thing.
I would conjecture at this time, because of these things, that this "science" he speaks of, is as you say, his own personal feelings based on nothing but what he thinks, based on no actual knowledge of the subject at hand.
It is very interesting to see a grown man effectively cover his ears and yell "LA LA LA, I'M NOT LISTENING, LA LA LA!"
It's sad really.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In reading this thread I had an aha moment. It reminds me of engineering analysis problems where the key is deciding where to draw the boundary. From my perspective, the differences between the position of AURaptor/Hero/others and that of Rue/SigmaNunki/others is a conflict between the size of the boundary. If I define a small localized boundary to the problem of global warming then I can see the point of view of AURaptor/Hero: namely that if I don't see immediate changes in my own environment then this isn't a problem that will affect me personally during my lifetime. If I define a very large boundary to the problem then I can see the point of view of Rue/SigmaNunki (although, in all fairness, this is my position anyway so it's not difficult to see my own point of view 
).
If I take a first person empirical approach to global warming and step outside and use that as my primary measurement then there is no problem. I live in California. It's a very mild climate. If anything, it seems a bit colder this year than in previous years. So just from my own perspective, global warming is not something I concern myself with.
If I look at myself as one small part of the human race and think in terms of the long view and of a planetary ecosystem then there is a problem. The drastic changes in the Arctic in regards to tundra and the potential mass extinctions that would follow from a climate change directly affect my species. So from a long term perspective, global warming is something I concern myself with.
But I see limited success in having a dialogue on this topic when the boundaries that people are working from are so different. We're really talking about apples and oranges.
Just thinking out loud is all.
There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigma....
Yep, you're right. You win the debate. I lose. Doesn't change a damn thing in the 'verse though. Feel better now ?
Played this game w/ Young Earth Creationist and Holocaust deniers. You believe what you want, as will I.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was catching up on the latest discussions here on global warming.
Just an update from my backyard: more snow. Lots more snow. Been snowing all day. Snowed last night. Snowed every day this week, but more today then every other day combined...today is what we herebouts call a "snow storm".
Most scientists are unfamiliar with the concept. Its caused by global cooling that occurs every year bout this time in the northern hemisphere. Cold air from Canada crosses Lake Erie and poof: snow up to my dog's ass. Most of the scientists don't recognize this type of event. I can understand their confusion. They were all down in Rio. Maybe they need to hold a December climate conference in Cleveland, then talk about global warming.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@SoupCatcher:
I agree with your analysis, but I must point out, that like yourself, I acknowledge the global part of the term global warming.
@AURaptor:
Please refer to my prior remark about you behaving childishly.
@Hero:
It is clear by your comments that you don't actually know what is meant by the term global warming.
Please take the time to look it up.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An article about other threats to global environment in addition to global warming:
Professor Jared Diamond, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said society was on the brink of irreversible decline unless 12 major environmental problems were tackled.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=603040
Independent
Next generation may be doomed to live in 'global Somalia'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
21 January 2005
An environmental collapse that would transform the world into a "global Somalia" could begin in 50 years if we fail to do anything about it, a world authority on the rise and fall of civilisations warned yesterday. Professor Jared Diamond, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said society was on the brink of irreversible decline unless 12 major environmental problems were tackled.
Professor Diamond, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, has spent many years studying the reasons why some societies in history thrived and others slipped into decline. He cited present-day Somalia as among several places where environmental degradation has already helped to trigger a collapse of government and the rule of law.
"Conditions of Somalia will spread," he said. "Somalia is an example of a worst-case scenario. State government has collapsed; it is a dry landscape, difficult to manage and, not surprisingly, it has problems of environmental degradation.
"There are plenty of countries where state government is moving towards collapse ... We will be living in a global Somalia if we don't do anything about it. My children, who are 17 years old, will be living in a global Somalia unless we solve our problems."
He warned that the omens were not looking good for the rich countries to survive the 21st century without a serious and possibly catastrophic drop in their present standard of living.
"If we continue doing the things we are doing now the outcome, which is not the worst-case scenario but the actual outcome, would be that we don't arrive at the end of the century," Professor Diamond said. "Most of our problems are ones with 30- to 50-year time fuses. That is the rate at which we are exploiting the world ... So if we carry on we do not arrive at the end of the century with a First-World lifestyle."
Professor Diamond, who was in London to publicise his book Collapse: How Societies Chose to Fail or Survive, said there were several possibilities if exploitation of the planet and its resources continued at the present rate. "The worst-case scenario can range from an apocalypse to something greyer. An apocalpyse would include fighting in dead earnest [over natural resources]," he said.
"There are also gentler outcomes. Today, there are countries that are poor and getting poorer. So one gentler outcome would be that poverty just spreads. Today, most African countries are poor and quite a few South American countries are poor. A gentle-worst-case scenario is that Brazil becomes poorer and Mexico becomes poorer and in Europe poverty spreads. Instead of eastern Europe catching up to western Europe, western Europe declines towards eastern Europe."
Most of the problems, such as deforestation and soil erosion, were similar to those that led to the collapse of societies ranging from the Maya in Mexico, the Easter Islanders and the Norse inhabitants of Greenland, he said. But the world was also facing global warming and more toxic pollution. "We need to do much more than we are doing now," Professor Diamond said.
© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME