The New Global Warming Thread

[Kerostasis]

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.

*Scans headlines*

My respect for livescience just dropped 2 or 3 notches. Scanning headlines from a "climate change" website is a terrible way to determine whether global warming is real/andor/important to begin with, but just for the sake of example, here's one they've got up today:
Greenhouses Gases Responsible for 2006's Record Warmth
This article talks about how 2006 was considered the warmest year on record (in our 110 years or so of keeping records on US temperature), until the rankings were revised and...um... now it's not. They don't mention what the rankings were revised TO, since the new rankings show 1934 as the warmest year on record (which doesn't help advance the story). Instead, they talk about how 2006 is now considered slightly cooler than 1998, which was previously considered the warmest year on record, before those...um...pesky numbers revisions that showed it actually isn't, and before 2006 was incorrectly measured as being even warmer. They also proudly boast that "greenhouse gasses", those convenient things that stop the temperature from reaching 30 below zero every night in August, were probably responsible for "more than half the increase" over average temperatures, by contrast to 1998 where they figure most of the temperature increase was purely localized due to unusual weather patterns shifting heat from elsewhere towards the US.

...

And THIS is what you want us to go to get all our science news? Sorry, I prefer more objective reporting than that.

...since global warming is more of political debate than a scientific debate anymore, your political affiliation I think is relevant.

Finally! Something we can agree on!

So let me ask, whats your political affiliation? What's your agenda in this?

[GhostintheShell]

^^^BTW, oil isn't really running out and to say that there is a current over-population of the earth is simply laughable, these are both "Green delusions".

You've already said that you are uninterested in reading the many previous pages of posts, and then you jump in at the end with nothing new or even interesting to contribute.

I'd say until you do and can contribute something in context with everyone else that has been with this thread all along...you are welcome to your own opinion just don't expect everyone else to respect anything you have to say.

[Lucky Shot]

So GW, what specifically have you changed in your personal life to avert global warming? Do you tithe wages to global warming scientists to prevent global warming? What steps do you plan in the future? I ask as this is an opportunity to model the right way to live.

Lucky Shot

[USN_Squid]

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.

It has nothing to do with commies or right wingers, whichever happens to be your bogeyman of the day.

Here's another one:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)

[GlobalWarmin]

^^^BTW, oil isn't really running out and to say that there is a current over-population of the earth is simply laughable, these are both "Green delusions".

So, oil is not a limited resource? The entire planet could support civilizations like in the US and China forever? Who's delusional?

My agenda is that I'm a human being, not just a selfish consumer, who has always been very aware of the world around him, and believes in protecting the planet, plants and animals that support my life, as well as the future, more than cars and the profits of big businesses. I can only believe what makes logical sense, and that which comes from trustworthy sources.

Personally, I sold my beloved V-8 Cadillac for a Honda Civic, and of course, I do all that I can do to use low amounts of electricity. In all honesty though, the cost of gas weighed heavier in that decision than the thought of the reduced carbon emissions I would be responsible for.

I don't feel that the best way to fix pollution problems is by asking billions of individuals to change their ways though, because that will without a doubt never work. Rather, it's up to the governments and nothing else to enact the changes. I love Capitalism, but it has to have some ground rules, or everything will be cut down, burned up, and addictive. And, whether all the conspiracy skeptics or healthy skeptics like it or not, the governments of the world are starting to make changes because of the scientific basis, high certainty, and threats posed by global warming -- and it doesn't look like that is going to stop anytime soon.

Scream foul all you want. Read and believe everything bloggers and studies by the corrupt US environmental agencies and their cronies have to say, and keep praying to Jesus that no one will take your Hummer away, because I don't think anyone is listening -- with good reason.

But, I hope you guys are right, and you get to rub it in my face that I chose to listen to the IPCC, instead of bloggers and the best doubt the US government could buy.

[Kerostasis]

So, oil is not a limited resource? The entire planet could support civilizations like in the US and China forever? Who's delusional?

Who's delusional? I'm gonna go for "you", again.

A few hundred years back, western civilisation ran primarily on power derived from burning wood. Despite being "renewable", as society expanded, eventually there was no longer sufficient lumber available to meet all our power needs. Wood was "running out". Then someone figured out how to burn charcoal to get power instead, and more and better power at that. The energy crisis was averted, and society began advancing even faster with the improved power output offered by charcoal. (Note--we still have plenty of wood, centuries after it was supposed to have "run out".)

After another century or so, easy-to-access charcoal reserves were no longer sufficient to meet all our power needs. Charcoal was "running out". The energy crisis was returning! Then someone figured out how to use Coal for power instead, which was available in huge supply but previously considered worthless. Coal offered even more and better power than Charcoal, and the Energy Crisis was averted again! Society advanced even faster with the improved power available from Coal. (Note--we still have plenty of charcoal, centuries after it was supposed to have "run out".)

After another good period of time, coal mining was again no longer sufficient to meet all our energy needs. Coal was "running out"! The Energy Crisis was returning! Then someone figured out how to use Oil for power instead, which was available in huge supply but previously considered worthless. Society advanced even faster with the improved power available from Oil. (Note--we still have plenty of coal, long after it was supposed to have "run out".)

Any of this getting repetitive yet? Here we are, another hundred and fifty years later, and now people are telling us our Oil is about to run out! The energy crisis has returned! Except we really still have enough oil reserves to last another century at least, but this time we're gonna be smart about it and think ahead! Not like the last 3 times we had to find a new energy source! This time we're gonna start panicking early!

I have plenty of confidence that in the century or two that it takes us to REALLY run out of oil, someone will develop a new energy source that will avert the ever-recurring Energy Crisis once again. Which brings me back to the original point: The delusional one here? You.

[IceCold]

Nothing short of the IPCC issuing a new report with different findings will influence my opinion.

Ah, so we're back something that was posted about earlier:

I was going to make a snide comment about how I didn't believe this to be the case, regardless of what they say their goal is... But I didn't have to, as their stated goal is quite different:

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"

So, climate change doesn't interest them, it's "human-induced climate change" that is the ENTIRE reason for their existence. Why would they possibly put out any assessment that would shorten the lifespan of their well paid organization?

If the IPCC could be considered a cult, well... You've made your true beliefs very clear with this statement.

[leejo]

If the IPCC could be considered a cult, well... You've made your true beliefs very clear with this statement.

I don't know if it's global warming or climate change, but BURN on you GW!

[Nikolas]

My A/C doesn't work very well. Beach is too crowded to be enjoyable.

Who knew SD got hot in September?

[leejo]

Who knew SD got hot in September?

The question is who is to blame? Hold on....thinking....uh.. ah...BIG OIL!

[Nikolas]

I blame the Yankees.

[Morganan]

What crap, it was never warm in SD before, obviously this is Global Warmin at it's worst. I also flatly refuse to cite anything in proof of my statement, as it's so obvious global warmin is to blame for San Diego being hot!

[IceCold]

I blame the Yankees.

I'll blame the Red Sox, then.

[Silas Ender]

I blame the Yankees.

You're just jealous of the talent and snazzy uniforms.

[GlobalWarmin]

I found something rather interesting. I was wondering what all of this so-called new information was that everyone seems to know about, that I have never heard of, so, I decided to search livescience.com and PBS for stories about global warming. What I found was surprising.

No joke, I couldn't find one story in their search (except for a blogger site on livescience), that said anything that suggested global warming, melting ice, rising C02, and rising sea levels are not very real. Out of 34 featured articles about climate at http://www.livescience.com/climate/ , guess how many give any attention to the voices of the opposition to the science behind global warming? One (see http://www.livescience.com/environme...l_warming.html).

If anyone wants to try to show any article from livescience that supports all this stuff about new temperature data, and the global warming hoax, that would be good, because I'd like to read it. If I wondered why I haven't heard all this anti-global warming noise, it's defiantly because PBS and livescience.com haven't said a word about it. From the information that one gets from just PBS and livescience, it's clear that the "majority of scientists" do in fact, without any doubt agree on the fundamentals of the IPCC reports.

So, I just found it interesting and satisfying to know (for the moment) that livescience.com has reported nothing that backs what has been said about new temperature data, or the myth of global warming. The IPCC website doesn't have anything either that I could find about new proof that fundamentally change their findings. But, this is all just part of some money making or socialist conspiracy some critics probably will say.

Also, to address the claim that I am being hypocritical for mentioning that the White House and NASA are actually conspiring to block and edit climate reports to support an anti-global warming position, I came across this current example to share as evidence:

http://www.livescience.com/environme...hurricane.html
http://www.space.com/spacenews/busin...ay_060206.html