The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

Did you also see they posted a rubuttal article and plan to run a series of these to open the discussion. Why are you so afraid of a debate?

The debate was over about 10 years ago. We've moved on to phase two, which is making the situation better. Won't you join us?

I just thought it was rather amusing that the featured paper is actually not a scientific paper, as it hasn't been peer reviewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo...n_of_Brenchley

Turns out he's not even a scientist...he's a neo-conservative politician and journalist! And he's actually a particularly nasty one at that. Thanks for posting!

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

I am a fan of Bruce Willis, and whenever he is interviewed by David Letterman it is classic and worth watching. His opening is hilarious and it might even make you chuckle globalwarmin:

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

The debate was over about 10 years ago. We've moved on to phase two, which is making the situation better. Won't you join us?

I just thought it was rather amusing that the featured paper is actually not a scientific paper, as it hasn't been peer reviewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo...n_of_Brenchley

Turns out he's not even a scientist...he's a neo-conservative politician and journalist! And he's actually a particularly nasty one at that. Thanks for posting!

You're right, I didn't look into his background. Why would the American Physical Society invite these articles to open a debate then?

By the way, It wasn't meant to be a peer reviewed scientific paper --it was being put up for review along with a rebuttal article. They plan to have a series of these in order to have a discussion about the so called consensus. What's wrong with that?

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

You're right, I didn't look into his background. Why would the American Physical Society invite these articles to open a debate then?

By the way, It wasn't meant to be a peer reviewed scientific paper --it was being put up for review along with a rebuttal article. They plan to have a series of these in order to have a discussion about the so called consensus. What's wrong with that?

Because stirring up controversy is a good way to move science forward. Moreover, he's critiquing the methodology of IPCC climate scientists with an eye towards a policy conclusion, which is more in the field of philosophy of science than science proper. Anyone with a decent mind can do philosophy or policy with no particular experience in scientific experiment. And, he was an advisor to Thatcher's policy group. So, why not?

I think the vast majority of scientists all agree that anthropogenic climate change has happened. A large number, however, deny the conclusion of the IPCC that such change is likely to be catastrophic in the near future. If you look more closely at those publically labeled as opponents of "global warming," you'll see that few of them really deny that there is good evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Famous physicist Freeman Dyson, for instance is often tauted by critics of global warming as a highly intelligent, scientifically gifted person who's on their side. But if you read what he writes on the subject, you'll see that this is not so. He agrees with the basic premise that human actions have caused the climate to change. He disagrees with the conclusion that such change is likely to be catastrophic. Like Monckton, he is critical of the methodology of IPCC scientists; in particular he is critical of the non-local computer models. He thinks that we don't have enough evidence at the moment that catastrophe is immanent, and that more funding for local research is necessary.

The debate at this point really is a debate over policy.

[ScratchMonkey]

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

I am a fan of Bruce Willis, and whenever he is interviewed by David Letterman it is classic and worth watching. His opening is hilarious and it might even make you chuckle globalwarmin:

LOL, yep, I believe in "global humidity"!

Now where can I get his "green" hat?

[GlobalWarmin]

Rumor Debunked: No Flip-Flop on Global Warming
http://www.livescience.com/environme...18-aps-gw.html

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Rumor Debunked: No Flip-Flop on Global Warming
http://www.livescience.com/environme...18-aps-gw.html

No one ever said there was a flip-flop (at least not here), just a debate on the concensus which your link conveniently omits. I wonder why?

Again from the APS site:
"With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. "

Kudos to them for reaffirming their position, which you share globalwarmin', and yet remain willing to discuss the science behind those conclussions.

[ScratchMonkey]

This week on Penn and Teller's Bull****, they discuss being green:

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/episodes.do

Episode 6: "Being Green"
According to Penn & Teller, most of the Green products being touted do little to help the earth despite their high prices and even worse. The duo will also dedicate a very special tribute to Al Gore – the Smartest Man in the History of the World.

[AMosely]

Tony Snow (RIP), Bruce Willis, Penn and Teller...

And so it goes for American advertising fads - first fashionable, then oversold, then mocked, then shunned until a possible retro-resurgence at some later decade. There were fears about 'green' following the fate of a fad, and it seems those fears were and are completely justified. It's a shame for those of us who for much of our lives have sought out the path of efficiency and sustainability and hoped that others would catch on. Fortunately due to the cost of oil a certain degree of 'green' inevitability has permeated the marketplace as a catalyst for change, however the results of that change in terms of efficiency and sustainability have yet to be determined.

Just ask yourself before buying anything or throwing anything away - where did it come from? What is it made of, and by whom? Is it reusable, recyclable or degradable? Is it toxic? The bigger the item, the more important these questions become. The right answers have far reaching benefits.

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Tony Snow (RIP), Bruce Willis, Penn and Teller...

And so it goes for American advertising fads - first fashionable, then oversold, then mocked, then shunned until a possible retro-resurgence at some later decade. There were fears about 'green' following the fate of a fad, and it seems those fears were and are completely justified. It's a shame for those of us who for much of our lives have sought out the path of efficiency and sustainability and hoped that others would catch on. Fortunately due to the cost of oil a certain degree of 'green' inevitability has permeated the marketplace as a catalyst for change, however the results of that change in terms of efficiency and sustainability have yet to be determined.

Just ask yourself before buying anything or throwing anything away - where did it come from? What is it made of, and by whom? Is it reusable, recyclable or degradable? Is it toxic? The bigger the item, the more important these questions become. The right answers have far reaching benefits.

mosely, if it is alright with you can i put that on my facebook page?

I really like what you posted. I am not being sarcastic at all.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

mosely, if it is alright with you can i put that on my facebook page?

I really like what you posted. I am not being sarcastic at all.

Of course. You can even claim it for yourself if you'd like, since 'Mosely' is a pseudonym anyway!

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Of course. You can even claim it for yourself if you'd like, since 'Mosely' is a pseudonym anyway!

Is this you?

[GlobalWarmin]

Air Pollution Causing Widespread And Serious Impacts To Ecosystems In Eastern United States
ScienceDaily (July 22, 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0721160250.htm

Short version:

A new report by the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and The Nature Conservancy has found that air pollution is degrading every major ecosystem type in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic United States.

Over 32 experts contributed to the effort; the prognosis is not good.

"Everywhere we looked, we found evidence of air pollution harming natural resources," comments Dr. Gary M. Lovett, an ecologist at the Cary Institute and the lead author of the report. "Decisive action is needed if we plan on preserving functioning ecosystems for future generations."

At the heart of the report is a call to action. Currently, U.S. air quality standards are determined by direct impacts to human health, with regulations targeting emission levels -- what leaves tail pipes and smoke stacks. They do not take into account where airborne pollution is actually deposited in the landscape or how this pollution compromises our soil and water resources and resident plants and animals.

"To safeguard ecosystem health, we need a new way of thinking about air pollution -- one that moves beyond measuring what is put up in the air, and captures actual impacts to natural areas, wildlife, and the services they provide," Lovett notes.

Establishing critical loads will require renewed investment in monitoring programs for air pollution and the ecosystems it affects. "We can't assess if ecosystems are harmed by air pollution if we don't monitor them. While some good pollution monitoring programs exist, our current system is fragmented, underfunded, and has serious gaps," remarks Lovett.

While there may be initial costs to ramping up monitoring efforts, consider the alternative. The fishless lakes of the Adirondacks are a harsh reminder that air pollution does not recognize property lines. Tear concludes, "In the absence of critical loads, there is a false security in conventional land conservation. We can manage natural areas with the best possible protocols, but we can't really 'protect' the land if it is continually exposed to air pollution."

Full version: http://www.ecostudies.org/Threats_from_Above.pdf

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

More reason to use nuclear power.......it works, and it is a lot cheaper and much more efficient than putting wind mills in everyone yard. Also Hydro electric power is a win.

One problem i think we should curb before everyone jumps all over air pollution is the rapidly growing obesity rate in America, but that's another topic for another thread.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

More reason to use nuclear power.......it works, and it is a lot cheaper and much more efficient than putting wind mills in everyone yard. Also Hydro electric power is a win.

One problem i think we should curb before everyone jumps all over air pollution is the rapidly growing obesity rate in America, but that's another topic for another thread.

Nuclear is a good mid term solution. But, like oil, there is a limited supply of the fuel and will become more and more expensive to acquire over time.

I think it would be a good transition energy source as we move from fossil fuels to renewable.

It is also good in areas where solar/wind are not viable. Your dissing of wind, however, is misguided. Nuclear is not cheaper than wind if you take all aspects of it into consideration.