The New Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

Your answer seems a little vague to me. Sorry if the question I asked wasn't clear. I'm still curious - if the position you hold is taken as gospel what specifically should happen next?

Specifically as citizens what we could do next is make sure that politicians who reject global warming as real are not elected into high offices. We also need to open our minds as Americans to be accepting of new ideas on sustainable societies -- the US isn't one. Americans have to be accepting that the fate of everyone might be resting on our ability to adapt to change.

There is really not a lot that we can do as citizens except put our votes in the right place. As I've said before, it's up to the governments of the world to solve such problems -- which I'm sure we can all agree is a scary thought. Their responsibility is to put limits on C02 production (which they are doing) with the goal of converting completely to renewable energy as quickly as possible. Basically, it's the governments' jobs to respect the findings of science, accurately represent them to citizens, and make public policy and economic decisions accordingly. Rewarding industry with tax breaks for cleaning up is important, as is funding for independent research into renewable energy. The sooner the government can break away from the influence of "big oil", the more chance we have to be the first to solve the world's energy problems and possibly avert potential crisis from global warming.

Man-made, not man-made -- doesn't really matter. Elected officials have to at least be aware that it is already happening. If it's a Democrat that doesn't believe in global warming, don't vote for them. However, if the Right wants to continue to use global warming doubts to energize their base, they should be ready accept the fallout and not try to point fingers at Democrats, Communists, and bias "liberal media" because science does not support their political platform any longer.

[USN_Squid]

What do you think about Nuclear energy GW?

[deathknight]

The sun creates wind and is directly involved in evaporation of water. And it has been shown that cosmic rays can create aerosols which aid in cloud formation. It's also a series of experiments for Svensmark that starts in 1996 but originally started by Edward Ney in 1958. Solar Radiation is an unpredictable variable and is a factor in weather creation. I have doubt about how many climate models treat it as a constant.

Lucky Shot

I'm not saying the theory is wrong or right. I just don't know yet since the experiment hasn't been done and even then it won't be able to show the total effect of solar radiation on the warming of the earth.

I do agree with you on the idea that climate models should not take it as a constant.

The way I see it, is we don't know how much of an effect we have on the climate, and I think we should at least take it seriously and try to limit our impact. If in 10-50 years it is shown we can do what we want and the earth will laugh at us, then we can pump as much CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere and live worry free. But if in 10-50 years it is shown we are a huge influence, it may be too late to right the ship.

[Lucky Shot]

People who take their beliefs and apply them I think is fantastic. Placing solar cells on your roof, recycling, planting local plants in your yard as opposed to non-native species that may require more water is great in my book. Doing nothing, but demanding that the government solve all the issues is where I see most people going and I think that's a shame. Especially for those that claim they are believers and the only thing they have done is dropped a beater car. Apparently they don't walk the talk.

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

What do you think about Nuclear energy GW?

I don't believe nuclear energy exists. Show me one news story where nuclear energy is real! Just kidding.

I don't know that much about nuclear energy. The consequences of it might be much worse than I can even imagine. I can image a future dependent on fossil fuels though, and that one can't possibly be too desirable for non-oil company CEOs. It certainly would make it possible to dramatically reduce greenhouse emissions from power plants.

Nuclear energy isn't too much different than fossil fuels though. Uranium is a limited natural resource too, so nuclear energy won't sustain us forever. At this point the benefit of nuclear energy probably outweighs the cost though. We are likely going to see nuclear energy make a comeback in the US soon, and I welcome it over so-called clean coal technology. I don't think it was the environmentalists that ended nuclear power here (no one ever listens to them). I think it probably had more to do with coal interests (complete speculation at this point by me).

The idea of using nuclear energy as a bridge between fossil fuels and our next leap in energy technology seems sound. The idea of using nuclear energy as a permanent and end-all solution to energy problems is not though.

[GlobalWarmin]

It is a blog and has a link to other blogs at the bottom. So according to your previous standards, it's unacceptable. What else you got?

Lucky Shot

You are right. That was literally some hippie, vegan, fake blog site. I apologize. I just assumed the website I was thinking of would be called onedegree.com when I made that link. I'd never been there before. I just knew that the Weather Channel had a site dedicated to educating people about the reality of global warming, and it's supposed to be called "onedegree".

You are right. I was wrong. Blog site. Not the Weather Channel site. Weather Channel site backs science. Lets move on

[GlobalWarmin]

Dood, there have been a zillion links posted in this thread.

Then it should be even easier to dig up the ones from major news sources for me .

[Lucky Shot]

You are right. That was literally some hippie, vegan, fake blog site. I apologize. I just assumed the website I was thinking of would be called onedegree.com when I made that link. I'd never been there before. I just knew that the Weather Channel had a site dedicated to educating people about the reality of global warming, and it's supposed to be called "onedegree".

You are right. I was wrong. Blog site. Not the Weather Channel site. Weather Channel site backs science. Lets move on

It's linked to 7 minute chef, I assume that this is the reason why you linked something about boiling water? No worries, it's an interesting blog.

Lucky Shot

[Silas Ender]

Then it should be even easier to dig up the ones from major news sources for me .

Want a foot rub and a candy bar while I'm at it?

"Feed me, Seymour!"

[GlobalWarmin]

People who take their beliefs and apply them I think is fantastic. Placing solar cells on your roof, recycling, planting local plants in your yard as opposed to non-native species that may require more water is great in my book. Doing nothing, but demanding that the government solve all the issues is where I see most people going and I think that's a shame. Especially for those that claim they are believers and the only thing they have done is dropped a beater car. Apparently they don't walk the talk.

Lucky Shot

Actually, if someone really takes their beliefs seriously, they don't just place solar cells on their house and pretend they are solving the world's problems. That is what hippies do. I'm not a hippie. I hate hippies because they are smug about nothing, won't work with the government (vote you idiots), and do so much to hurt public opinion about Liberal causes because they dress funny and smell bad. I don't mean to categorize everyone who has solar cells as a hippie, but i think you know what I am getting at. For me nothing short of a real solution to problems is acceptable.

Believe me if I wasn't a poor college student I would do more to reduce my energy usage too. I'm not foolish enough though to think that would make a difference to anything except my energy bills. After school I hope to be designing green buildings (which I'm banking on being big business) as an architect. I might just switch to climate science though, just to prove to you people about global warming. Get a good education, work hard, be successful, and THEN save the world as a politician. I'm working on it.

I've spent several days trying my best to influence the opinions of a handful of people who will never change their minds. I think my dedication to my beliefs is pretty strong

I mean, what do you want me to do? Plant flowers instead of work for policy change? I never said I was an activist anyways. I just know about global warming from the news over the past ten years or more, and even more about the political debate clouding the judgment of people in America.

[deathknight]

Doing nothing, but demanding that the government solve all the issues is where I see most people going and I think that's a shame. Especially for those that claim they are believers and the only thing they have done is dropped a beater car. Apparently they don't walk the talk.

Lucky Shot

I totally agree with you.

[Lucky Shot]

If you don't practice what you intend to force on others then you are a hypocrite pure and simple. The problem is that you will never convince anyone of anything if you belittle their sources, of which you have offered none and accepted none. While pretending to be all knowledgable you have fallen far short of that by only accepting two handpicked sources. Because of your inability to actually talk about the science, I imagine that Global Warming is a religion for you where you have absolute unending faith without regard to looking at the research. It's a shame.

Lucky Shot

[CingularDuality]

I've spent several days trying my best to influence the opinions of a handful of people who will never change their minds. I think my dedication to my beliefs is pretty strong

You've spent several days attacking people personally, refusing to provide factual evidence to back your claims, attacking certain types of news sources while using them yourself, making outrageously incorrect statements about basic scientific principles, and have made some of the most hypocritical statements I've seen in the Sandbox in a looong time.

I'm not going to participate in this discussion anymore, as I find it difficult to step back and look at it with any sense of objectivity when I'm involved in the arguments.

Know this. This thread is close to being shut down, and it's mostly because of YOUR "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. If you're not willing to debate things without doing any of the things listed above, then please stay out of the Sandbox completely.

[GlobalWarmin]

If you don't practice what you intend to force on others then you are a hypocrite pure and simple. The problem is that you will never convince anyone of anything if you belittle their sources, of which you have offered none and accepted none. While pretending to be all knowledgable you have fallen far short of that by only accepting two handpicked sources. Because of your inability to actually talk about the science, I imagine that Global Warming is a religion for you where you have absolute unending faith without regard to looking at the research. It's a shame.

Lucky Shot

If you think I've only quoted two sources you've obviously missed quite a few of my posts.

Prepare for the ultimate guide to global warming information on the Internet... except some them don't work because I messed up...

Here is a list of all the Internet links I can provide that I have mentioned in previous posts:

1) http://climate.weather.com/topics/science.html
2) http://www.livescience.com/environment/
3) http://www.livescience.com/climate/
4) http://www.livescience.com/environme...l_warming.html
5) http://www.livescience.com/environme...hurricane.html
6) http://www.space.com/spacenews/busin...ay_060206.html (dead?)
7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/
8) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...ee7f&e i=5088
9) http://www.earthsky.org
10) http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html
11) http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html (website of scientist used by skeptic here to deny the IPCC report findings)
12) http://www.livescience.com/environme...americans.html
13) http://www.livescience.com/environme...al_critic.html
14) http://www.livescience.com/environme...e_history.html
15) http://www.imaginova.com/partners/ (not actually GW related)
16) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ali...-planet-despit
17) http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/ (World's largest scientific group's position affirming global warming)
18) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ali...ming-will-step
19) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post (showing the intentional bias of a newspaper that the Republican bloggers repeatedly used from this link http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...B-DCCB00B51A12 )
20) http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...es-hansen.html
21) http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3150 (CHECK IT OUT. All your questions about global warming answered and all bogus sources exposed)
22) http://www.onedegree.com/ (mistakenly linked, unreliable site for unbiased information)
23) http://www.pbs.org/search/search_res...ghborhood=none
24) http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/s...ing/index.html
25) http://www.nytimes.com/learning/issu.../20060406.html
26) http://www.climatehotmap.org/
27) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
28) http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
29) http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/default.asp
30) http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/qa/
31) http://www.uspirg.org/issues/global-warming-solutions
32) http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate...ness/index.cfm
33) http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/

...more to come.

[GlobalWarmin]

List of reputable Internet resources about global warming continued:

34) http://nationalacademies.org/Results...&sa=Search#837
35) http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/...rism3main.html
36) http://www.agu.org/ (supports global warming and North America's largest professional association of Earth and climate scientists)
37) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...climate_change (their official position on climate change)
38) http://www.ametsoc.org/
39) http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-1480/ (Climate Change Journal)
40) http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/egustatement.pdf (European Geosciences Union responds to attacks by US House Committee on the IPCC)
41) http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf (statement by the Joint science academies of the world confirming global warming)
42) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222
43) http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
44) http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html (exposes GW critics)
45) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...ract/1115602v1
46) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...dtemp2005.html
47) http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Global-...lth20aug00.htm
48) http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/ (sun cannot explain current warming trend)
49) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...gerprints.html (Human fingerprints for GW)
50) http://www.climateark.org/news/
51) http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...t14oct99_1.htm (shows no correlation between sun spots and temperatures)
52) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733060/ (Shell Oil says debate is over)
53) http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/09/14/68960
54) http://timlambert.org/2005/02/clueless-2/ (blog)
55) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sunspots.html (Sunspots not causing GW)
56) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nganimals.html
57) http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-warming_x.htm
58) http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Classr...l_Warming.html
59) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...7C83414B7F0000
60) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=100 (Climate modeling accuracy)
61) http://www.fluorocarbons.org/en/info...s/fact_05.html (Stratospheric cooling explained)
62) http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...teoftheClimate (temperature data from 2006 confirming global warming, melting ice, rising seas at highest rates ever)
63) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration (disproves the dated notion that there is no consensus on GW)

The problem now is that there is too much information here. Hopefully someone will look at it and get a clearer picture about what is really going on regarding this issue.

Now I'd like for some of you to share with me the news stories that you know about that contradicts anything of that above (not blogs or old reports). I need you to show me them because I cannot find any.

All of these links could be found (and many more) if any of you had bothered to look at what I provided for you or listened to what I said. There are more than two resources there.

I find the comments about my integrity to be unfounded accusations. I don't feel like I am being respected, but no one wants to say anything about that. I have provided all of that information above in earlier posts. Yet I am told that I haven't provided any information, and I'm tossing around wild, baseless claims? I've been called a hypocrite for not inventing a time machine to solve global warming or working to discover renewable energy sources? This thread should be closed, because the scientific debate about global warming is over.

Again I apologize for being contentious, but this is a very important issue that I've paid a lot of attention too. I hope I have not made any personal attacks on anyone outside of implying that they are ideologues, or have quoted clearly politically bias sources as reliable information.