The New Global Warming Thread

[Lucky Shot]

Cmon, at least get my name right.

There is new information that is coming to light, specifically that the global temperature data was incorrect. The IPCC has already written their report and they have figured in the old numbers, unless you can tell me that all those studies based on the old numbers were already considered by them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that their information is now based on incorrect information. Heck, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the numbers were faulty in the first place (But he should have).

The examination into how they gather their temperatures is new as only about a third of the weather stations in the US have been examined. However, many of these systems are sending data that is considered to be absolute when in fact that it doesn't stand under scrutiny. Half fail to meet all of the NOAA standards. This failure is leading to higher temperatures in a region then what is accurate. Measuring the temperature off of black top pavement is not an accurate way to determine the temperature of an area. The implication will be a further lowered adjustment on temperatures.

Scientists are motivated by grants. Over the last 6 years, the US has spent $29 Billion on Climate Research. This isn't pocket change and tossing around that kind of money is bound to bring less then ethical activity from scientists. The danger of taking a contrarion position is mockery in your profession and loss of grants. Here is Richard Lindzen, MIT Scientist discussing the religion of Global Warming among scientists. Peer Review has become Peer Pressure which can impact a scientists career. My guess is that the IPCC "Scientists" have already considered that into their research. For what it's worth, the scientists that I have quoted do not receive Oil Money based on my knowledge. The guy who is doing the weather stations is doing this as a hobby.

The Nazi's denounced Einstein's Theory of Relativity with thousands signing a documents saying as much. Einstein's reply was if they were right, it would have only taken one of them. Remember that because a majority of scientists agree on something, that doesn't necessarily make it the correct answer.

By the way, why is it that I always quote my sources and I get the feeling that you haven't bothered to even read one of the links I sent you?

Lucky Shot

[Lucky Shot]

Oils come from plants and animals too. Do you think we didn't lubricate machines before petroleum?

Sounds like your ready to go into business. Let me know how it works out!

Lucky Shot

[USN_Squid]

However, I'm curious as to why you see the science behind the small amount of doubt that the world's scientists have to be considered so accurate and true, but the overwhelming majority of predictions and measurements that very heavily show the opposite are considered junk?

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

[Morganan]

Darn, since you know so much about this topic, I thought you were going to debate his points with him and totally destroy his argument. Instead you bring up statement's that have been put to bed as false 20-some pages ago...

[Lucky Shot]

Hollywood announces a correlation with Ticket Sales This Summer and Global Warming.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...goryId=13&cs=1

Global Warmin, what is your position on the correlation between Ticket Sales for Movies and Global Warming?

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Please tell me this blogger's website isn't where you are getting all you information from? The Internet is not an accepted research tool for good reasons. Who cares what bloggers say? Who cares what institutes that have a documented anti-global warming agenda say, or ones funded by the governments of the biggest carbon polluters in the world say? Nothing short of the IPCC issuing a new report with different findings will influence my opinion. I read through that bloggers articles, which I said earlier I would not do because it's a waste of time, and some of the comments after. Not surprisingly, other people were able to easily expose at least some of those articles as unreliable.

Lucky SHOT, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that human beings are using too many natural resources to maintain their civilizations for much longer at this rate. Releasing too much C02 into the atmosphere is just one of the many things people are doing that harms the environment. So, even if alternative energy sources can be discovered that are as cheap and powerful as petroleum, human being, especially Americans, are going to have no choice but to change they way they live, or kill a billion people.

Also, Lucky, I take from your reply that you believe it's nothing more than peer pressure and bad science that lead to the IPCC report? You didn't really seem to address the questions I asked you about conspiracy theories and communists.

[GlobalWarmin]

Hollywood announces a correlation with Ticket Sales This Summer and Global Warming.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...goryId=13&cs=1

Global Warmin, what is your position on the correlation between Ticket Sales for Movies and Global Warming?

Lucky Shot

Hehe. I thought this was going to be something funny about the Al Gore movie, which by the way I haven't seen.

That article doesn't actually have to do with global warming though. At the end of the article all it says is that some people think the weather might have helped ticket sales this Summer.

[USN_Squid]

Please tell me this blogger's website isn't where you are getting all you information from? The Internet is not an accepted research tool for good reasons. Who cares what bloggers say? Who cares what institutes that have a documented anti-global warming agenda say, or ones funded by the governments of the biggest carbon polluters in the world say? Nothing short of the IPCC issuing a new report with different findings will influence my opinion. I read through that bloggers articles, which I said earlier I would not do because it's a waste of time, and some of the comments after. Not surprisingly, other people were able to easily expose at least some of those articles as unreliable.

Are you telling me you don't get any information from the internet? I find that hard to believe. The blogger posted the results of the study. That doesn't affect the study or the source. There are many stories, surveys and studies that never make it to any large "accepted" media source. Did you read the content of the study, or just dismiss it out of hand because a blog decided to post the results?

You do realize of course that the IPCC report has serious credibility issues raised by the very scientists involved with the report? Of course, they must be on the take from big oil, nevermind.

[Kerostasis]

The Internet is not an accepted research tool for good reasons.

Yes, a very good reason. When you reference "that scientific journal I read a while back", most people will never be able to check up on you. But if you have an actual web-link to the source you reference, everyone can instantly see if you're BSing or not. Therefore, online sources are avoided whenever possible.

[Lucky Shot]

Hehe. I thought this was going to be something funny about the Al Gore movie, which by the way I haven't seen.

That article doesn't actually have to do with global warming though. At the end of the article all it says is that some people think the weather might have helped ticket sales this Summer.

Headline is the headline. You think they did it to bring in more readers? It sure as heck was linked more then a regular article around movie revenues.

Lucky Shot

[Lucky Shot]

Please tell me this blogger's website isn't where you are getting all you information from? The Internet is not an accepted research tool for good reasons. Who cares what bloggers say? Who cares what institutes that have a documented anti-global warming agenda say, or ones funded by the governments of the biggest carbon polluters in the world say? Nothing short of the IPCC issuing a new report with different findings will influence my opinion. I read through that bloggers articles, which I said earlier I would not do because it's a waste of time, and some of the comments after. Not surprisingly, other people were able to easily expose at least some of those articles as unreliable.

Lucky SHOT, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that human beings are using too many natural resources to maintain their civilizations for much longer at this rate. Releasing too much C02 into the atmosphere is just one of the many things people are doing that harms the environment. So, even if alternative energy sources can be discovered that are as cheap and powerful as petroleum, human being, especially Americans, are going to have no choice but to change they way they live, or kill a billion people.

Also, Lucky, I take from your reply that you believe it's nothing more than peer pressure and bad science that lead to the IPCC report? You didn't really seem to address the questions I asked you about conspiracy theories and communists.

Their next report is based off faulty science. We know it now, but you want to wait for their report that includes incorrect data and use it as a bludgeon. Same as the last one as it relied on the debunked Hockey Stick. Seems to be the only thing on your mind besides providing buzzwords. Interesting enough, AMosely who is a BIG FAN of Global Warming, he would love you, insisted that we should only use Blogs and ignore the Main Stream Media to drive our opinions. Honestly, I don't know why you keep shoving Communist Scientist on me, I never discussed it.

Lucky Shot

[marstein]

Their next report is based off faulty science. We know it now, but you want to wait for their report that includes incorrect data and use it as a bludgeon. Same as the last one as it relied on the debunked Hockey Stick.

Okay, I am not a climate scientist, but neither are you. And I don't think you can dismiss that whole report (and many others) outright. In this thread there doesn't seem to be any hope to reach a consensus. We should let the experts fight it out but there will always be people that come up with false or real reasons why the other side might be wrong.
My opinion is that it has been proven that it is proven that the earth is slowly heating up. This is caused mostly by human activities. The effects will include more violent weather patterns (more hurricanes, storms, wildfires, tornadoes, floods - and it does seem to happen already). Since chaos is at work here the numbers will not uniformly go up - it's trend is upward.

What we do about it is a range of options that have to adapt to the risk. Doing nothing would be dangerous, yet that seems to be what some propose - or is it?

[Lucky Shot]

Marstein, they based their computer models off data that has changed dramatically. Why would you assume that their results would still be the same now that the numbers have changed?

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Furthermore, if the model does give the same results regardless of the source data used to calculate it, you've really got to question the accuracy of the model. That was one of the (many) complaints about the "hockey stick" model, iirc. You could feed the model random gibberish data, and it would STILL give you a catastrophic hockey stick curve.

If your model isn't capable of predicting a hundred thousand years of relative climate-non-catastrophy, which is what is required to assume the onset of human industrialization actually changes things, then there is no reason to trust the model's predictions of catastrophy in the future.

[GlobalWarmin]

I do get science news from the Internet, but only from here:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/

Just from today's stories one can see just how real the problem of global warming (whether man-made or not) is to the entire world, and even the Bush Administration -- which was seemingly the last government to finally agree to accept what scientists have been saying for a long time about the issue. It's almost like no one takes the claims by rouge scientist and ones paid by the oil companies seriously. If only the entire industrial world would listen to right-wing bloggers, instead of common sense, we could keep on burning limited resources, without having to think about the future in terms other than immediate profits.

Show me a report that 158 nations agreed upon, that says global warming is very unlikely to be man-made. I will read that and take it very seriously. Or are you aware of any similar, published, comprehensive studies that have been endorsed by multiple nations, which say that human being are very unlikely to be capable of increasing the global temperatures, or that the climate can never change to have negative impacts on modern civilization? Without such a report you have no real argument that I can see. I am very interested if there is such a report in existence though. I would also like to believe that everything in the world is perfect, that there is no reason to change anything.

Of course, regardless if burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, they will run out -- soon enough if the current consumption trends continue -- so why all the gloom and doom because the implications behind today's scientific findings are that humans need to burn less fossil fuels, as well as curb some of their wasteful practices? This is a serious question: Why does it hurt you to know that the whole world is finally starting to accept the consequences of overpopulation and pollution?

So, as I keep asking, what is your agenda? I've talked to people before who believe this is how Jesus comes back. I don't think you are an environmentalist, who is just sick of this false science that is distracting from the real issues. I also guess you don't believe the same theory that Greasy Mullet proposed, which brought me into the discussion in the first place (that he has never answered my questions about either). So, I'd like to know if you consider yourself a political conservative or not? Not that being a conservative would discredit anything you have to say, but it would explain your agenda and where you get all of this anti-global warming information from, and since global warming is more of political debate than a scientific debate anymore, your political affiliation I think is relevant.