[jr2]

I am with you, since alarmist are a lot of times lying.

... And all of the time stretching.

[Flipside]

Oh, I don't doubt we are having an impact to a degree either, which is probably larger than some would like you to think, but probably less than some others try to make you believe. Or, to round it down, probably somewhere in between.

We've known we were at the tail end of an interglacial period for some time, it's going to get mighty cold for around 60,000 years, as I remember it, that interglacial period is preceded by a period of Global Warming. The original estimate for that, though, was within the next 20,000 years. However, as far as I'm aware, there is very little data for the glacial-interglacial transition speed, we don't know how long it takes for an ice-age to get rolling.

So, are we having an effect? Yes. Is cutting back going to buy us some time? Yes. Are we, at the end of the day, spitting at a Tsunami? I believe that is quite possibly the case.

[Janos]

I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.

The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.

The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.

Ahh yes, the good old "Truth is in the middle"-fallacy. Yes, IPCC and other international huge scientific organizations are wrong, these news brought to you by Flipside from the internet!

Gosh! Did I actually say that I didn't necessarily agree with a large, scientific body that relies on funding? Unthinkable, maybe I should be put to death by stoning for daring to go against the 'flow'!

Do you realise where that kind of thinking leads?

'You can't argue with the IPCC! They're....the IPCC!'

Seen that fallacy rise to the surface more than once.

Edit: And for clarification, 400 years ago would you have been saying 'The Earth? Around the sun?? don't be ridiculous!'?

You can disagree with them as much as you want. But you do realize that they are a very good authority on this (and they are only one of like billion institutions that say that yes, global warming is manmade)? Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not authority on the matter at hand! However, your "disagreement", calling for middle road, means that you believe they are wrong every single time when it comes to global warming!

Also, I wasn't there 400 years ago, so thanks for your omniscience, what am I going to do tomorrow?

[WeatherOp]

Oh, I don't doubt we are having an impact to a degree either, which is probably larger than some would like you to think, but probably less than some others try to make you believe. Or, to round it down, probably somewhere in between.

We've known we were at the tail end of an interglacial period for some time, it's going to get mighty cold for around 60,000 years, as I remember it, that interglacial period is preceded by a period of Global Warming. The original estimate for that, though, was within the next 20,000 years. However, as far as I'm aware, there is very little data for the glacial-interglacial transition speed, we don't know how long it takes for an ice-age to get rolling.

So, are we having an effect? Yes. Is cutting back going to buy us some time? Yes. Are we, at the end of the day, spitting at a Tsunami? I believe that is quite possibly the case.

We'll the thing is there are many different ways of looking at the effects. My major beef with Global Warming lies with "Climate Change", where as everyone knows the heat from the greenhouse effect strengthens totally throwing the climate into chaos. Now for one,  the temp has risen between .4 and .6C over the past 200 years. Now the thing is, could .5C of warming throw the climate into chaos?  Well there is another twist, that is at the surface, as as has been said already the surface is warming faster than the mid-upper layers of the atmosphere(Throws a kink into some global warming thoughts) So the warming up through the atmosphere is less.

Why is that important? Well the systems that give us our weather are not at the surface but are at and above 500mb(around 5600M in height). So one of the real split questions in Global Warming is Not just are we warming the earth, but are we changing the atmosphere.

My second major beef with global warming is not really global warming but it's supporters. Now I've seen several times where someone gets a heat wave, "it's global warming!", if someone gets hit by a hurricane, "it's global warming", but sometimes if you get a freak winter blast you get this answer, "No single event can prove support for or against global warming" 

Now that steams me.

I totally understand your stance Flip and it is a good one I can relate with. If we have added this much Co2 into the atmosphere, yes we would be likely having a small effect temp-wise. But, when someone tells me that the effect we caused has thrown the planet into chaos, you'll lose me pretty quick. 

[TrashMan]

There's no doubt some people are overblowingthe issue..You will ALLWAYS find people on both sides (both? Many times there aren't just 3 sides..on any side to be more specific)

Several large scienfitic bodies agree on the amtter (The IPPC, UN report, etc..) Do they have the auhority on the matter? Yes. Is it possible that they are lying? Of course..it always is..but it's not very likely. We're talking about thousands of scientists here.

On the "Sun around the Earth" analgoy - back then there was no scientific method, no peer review, no large anual gathering and debates, so this can't compare...at all.
Will you find scientists that disagree? Of course you will. These days you can find people that disagree on ANYTHING. You even have educated people claiming redicolous things - like the Earth is 4000 years old or even crazier stuff. So that doesn't realyl say much.

I for one trust Al Gore. Why?
1. I had to write a paper on the subject of Global Warming so I had to do a lot of research into that matter. Real reserch, and a not a quick web search.
2. Why would he lie? I'ts not a political gimmick, since he's not running for president and he's been fighting global warming like forever.
3. I have eyes.

Just how big of a influence we have? Hard to tell, but even a small influence is enough to tip the scales, and climate is and apparently allways has been rather fragile. Not to mention that anyone with some knowledge of chemisty can quickyl see that some of the things we dump in nature and thousands, if not million of times more damageing than anything that normally happens in nature.
IIRC, one molecule of a greenhouse gas (can't remember which one it was tough) can react to and destroy more than 10000 molecules of ozone before it degrades Go figure.

[WeatherOp]

There's no doubt some people are overblowingthe issue..You will ALLWAYS find people on both sides (both? Many times there aren't just 3 sides..on any side to be more specific)

Several large scienfitic bodies agree on the amtter (The IPPC, UN report, etc..) Do they have the auhority on the matter? Yes. Is it possible that they are lying? Of course..it always is..but it's not very likely. We're talking about thousands of scientists here.

On the "Sun around the Earth" analgoy - back then there was no scientific method, no peer review, no large anual gathering and debates, so this can't compare...at all.
Will you find scientists that disagree? Of course you will. These days you can find people that disagree on ANYTHING. You even have educated people claiming redicolous things - like the Earth is 4000 years old or even crazier stuff. So that doesn't realyl say much.

I for one trust Al Gore. Why?
1. I had to write a paper on the subject of Global Warming so I had to do a lot of research into that matter. Real reserch, and a not a quick web search.
2. Why would he lie? I'ts not a political gimmick, since he's not running for president and he's been fighting global warming like forever.
3. I have eyes.

Just how big of a influence we have? Hard to tell, but even a small influence is enough to tip the scales, and climate is and apparently allways has been rather fragile. Not to mention that anyone with some knowledge of chemisty can quickyl see that some of the things we dump in nature and thousands, if not million of times more damageing than anything that normally happens in nature.
IIRC, one molecule of a greenhouse gas (can't remember which one it was tough) can react to and destroy more than 10000 molecules of ozone before it degrades Go figure.

Then you might like this. 

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[karajorma]

Two can play that game.

http://www.badscience.net/?p=383

I do have to wonder how many of those scientists who have doubts are simply being misrepresented in the same way as in that documentary.

My second major beef with global warming is not really global warming but it's supporters. Now I've seen several times where someone gets a heat wave, "it's global warming!", if someone gets hit by a hurricane, "it's global warming", but sometimes if you get a freak winter blast you get this answer, "No single event can prove support for or against global warming" 

Now that steams me.

Pisses me off too.

But when certain Christians blame hurricanes on God does that mean you deny His existence? There is no cause so right or so wrong you won't find vocal idiots shouting about it. But that doesn't automatically invalidate the cause itself.

My problem is not with Janos disagreeing with me, that's his prerogative, my problem is with the whole 'Oh noes! He questions the Panel!'[/qoute]

If that's all you have a problem with then little more need be said. His reply was unnecessarily rude.

Edit: And, I hate to say it, but if I can post anonymously to a bulletin board and get my credibility vehemently attacked, when I never even pretended to have any, it does make me wonder how accurate that report is about scientists who are afraid to mention their own personal concerns about the alarmism.

cf my reply to WeatherOp.


But seriously I tend to be very skeptical about the skeptics. How many of them are the same people who 20 years ago were trying to tell us that the world wasn't warming at all? Cause the argument about it not being man-made is actually newer than whole Greenhouse Effect/Global Warming debate.

For the 5 years there were a whole bunch of scientists lined up to tell us that the world wasn't actually getting any warmer. They had graphs and charts to prove it too. They were lots of scientists from all kinds of disciplines saying that the world wasn't warming up. Unfortunately for them after a few years the level of proof because sufficient that only a crackpot would continue to claim that the world wasn't getting warmer. Then we saw a sudden change in the sceptics views to the position that yes, the world is getting warmer but mankind isn't to blame for it.

I find it very suspicious that someone can do a complete 180 on their point of view that quickly.

[TrashMan]

Then you might like this. 

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Read it when I was writing the paper. As I said, I've benn very methodical in my research. I spent 2 months just reading trough materials from 2 pages worth of sources.

For the 5 years there were a whole bunch of scientists lined up to tell us that the world wasn't actually getting any warmer. They had graphs and charts to prove it too. They were lots of scientists from all kinds of disciplines saying that the world wasn't warming up. Unfortunately for them after a few years the level of proof because sufficient that only a crackpot would continue to claim that the world wasn't getting warmer. Then we saw a sudden change in the sceptics views to the position that yes, the world is getting warmer but mankind isn't to blame for it.

It wouldn't surprise me if 5 years from now we see the same thing regarding man-caused Global Warming.

[karajorma]

You think they'll blame alien death rays next?

[nubbles526]

You think they'll blame alien death rays next?

Lol, but shivans is non-canon for the rest of world who don't play FS.

[WeatherOp]

My second major beef with global warming is not really global warming but it's supporters. Now I've seen several times where someone gets a heat wave, "it's global warming!", if someone gets hit by a hurricane, "it's global warming", but sometimes if you get a freak winter blast you get this answer, "No single event can prove support for or against global warming" 

Now that steams me.

Pisses me off too.

But when certain Christians blame hurricanes on God does that mean you deny His existence? There is no cause so right or so wrong you won't find vocal idiots shouting about it. But that doesn't automatically invalidate the cause itself.

Yeah, but you must admit you hear much more people saying every departure of temp, hurricanes, ice melting, is caused by global warming, than you hear people saying a hurricane hit a city because everyone was un-godly.

So there are a lot more idiots in your camp, than mine.

cf my reply to WeatherOp.


But seriously I tend to be very skeptical about the skeptics. How many of them are the same people who 20 years ago were trying to tell us that the world wasn't warming at all? Cause the argument about it not being man-made is actually newer than whole Greenhouse Effect/Global Warming debate.

For the 5 years there were a whole bunch of scientists lined up to tell us that the world wasn't actually getting any warmer. They had graphs and charts to prove it too. They were lots of scientists from all kinds of disciplines saying that the world wasn't warming up. Unfortunately for them after a few years the level of proof because sufficient that only a crackpot would continue to claim that the world wasn't getting warmer. Then we saw a sudden change in the sceptics views to the position that yes, the world is getting warmer but mankind isn't to blame for it.

I find it very suspicious that someone can do a complete 180 on their point of view that quickly.

And I'm very skeptical about how global warming is portrayed to the everyday people who really have no clue about how the atmosphere works. It would be very easy to twist around things. Like this for example:



I could easily point to the huge spike at the end and say it's man's global warming. But, the truth is if you look at the map and lets assume it is correct, you see that temps were below avg. for the past 1000+ years and the Medieval warm spike was avg.

But, then again I can't blame them for confusing and using the stupid public. 

[karajorma]

Yeah, but you must admit you hear much more people saying every departure of temp, hurricanes, ice melting, is caused by global warming, than you hear people saying a hurricane hit a city because everyone was un-godly.

So there are a lot more idiots in your camp, than mine.

Ah but the quality of your camps stupidity is so much better.

*points at Fred Phelps*

I doubt that there is anything as good as that in the global warming camp.

And I'm very skeptical about how global warming is portrayed to the everyday people who really have no clue about how the atmosphere works. It would be very easy to twist around things. Like this for example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I could easily point to the huge spike at the end and say it's man's global warming. But, the truth is if you look at the map and lets assume it is correct, you see that temps were below avg. for the past 1000+ years and the Medieval warm spike was avg.

But, then again I can't blame them for confusing and using the stupid public. 

It has to be presented simply though. A graph like that is understandable to the average public. More importantly it's understandable to politicians. Who lets face it couldn't find their arse with both hands.

[WeatherOp]

Yeah, but you must admit you hear much more people saying every departure of temp, hurricanes, ice melting, is caused by global warming, than you hear people saying a hurricane hit a city because everyone was un-godly.

So there are a lot more idiots in your camp, than mine.

Ah but the quality of your camps stupidity is so much better.

*points at Fred Phelps*

I doubt that there is anything as good as that in the global warming camp.

Phelps a good idiot, but there was the politician that said global warming skeptics should be treated like traitors. I can't remember his name though.

[karajorma]

Let's face it, he may play in the same league as Phelps but he's at the bottom facing relegation in comparison. One utterly stupid comment can't compare with a lifetime of them.

[jr2]

Go read this: here.  Then come back and talk about it.. will be interesting.  Just keep it nice, will ya?  XD  Ya, riiiiiight...  Hmm... people are actually being civilized here.  /me likes.  But did anyone read the link?  XD 

[Kosh]

I sometimes feel guilty in posting these things but...
US Scientists have 'proven' that global warming is not due to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, but because of Earth itself. The scientists claimed that the Earth is rotating faster, and therefore the core of the earth is also heating up.
I bet all you played Blue Planet right? That would happen one day...except there is no Knossos portal AND there is no Delta Serpantis AND there are no Vasudans AND ther is no subspace.

Who when and where?

[Hellstryker]

I would have to disagree on the subspace thing. though im quite sure it works quite diferantly from the subspace in freespace  And, delta serpentis does exist 

[Knight Templar]

I like where this thread started, and where it is going. It reminds me a lot of why I don't read this board anymore.

Little known fact: The United States also invented breast, lung and prostate cancer. The US also put the AIDS into Africa to kill off all the Colored people. The fact that the gay community caught it as well was only icing on the cake.

[WeatherOp]

I like where this thread started, and where it is going. It reminds me a lot of why I don't read this board anymore.

Little known fact: The United States also invented breast, lung and prostate cancer. The US also put the AIDS into Africa to kill off all the Colored people. The fact that the gay community caught it as well was only icing on the cake.

Ohh, I thought you were talking about Kara and I debating idiots. My bad.

[Knight Templar]

I like where this thread started, and where it is going. It reminds me a lot of why I don't read this board anymore.

Little known fact: The United States also invented breast, lung and prostate cancer. The US also put the AIDS into Africa to kill off all the Colored people. The fact that the gay community caught it as well was only icing on the cake.

Ohh, I thought you were talking about Kara and I debating idiots. My bad.

No. I usually don't usually read long debate posts with quotes and dick waving, especially about asinine controversial topics like global warming.

But I do like your signature quote.