U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:55 AM
 
114 posts, read 124,375 times
Reputation: 28

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
You read where they are saying policy makers should take action to address the problem, right?

HAHAHA! The Oklahoma Climatological Statement was found on the AASC website...the one you claim is opposed to global warming.

Overwhelming observational evidence indicates that the earth is warming, and that the cause of that warming is mostly anthropogenic (caused by humans) in nature. Further, the vast majority of scientists that study climate change believe that warming will continue for the foreseeable future.

Yes, they are sure driving a stake in the heart of global warming.
That is NOT the state of the American Association of State Climatologists, this is:

Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change (PDF) (AASC)

Quote:
[...] 2. Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.

Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. These components include the oceans, land, lakes, and continental ice sheets, and involve physical, biological, and chemical processes. The complicated feedbacks and forcings within the climate system are the reasons for the difficulty in accurately predicting the future climate. The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends.

3. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate. Climate is always changing on a variety of time scales and being prepared for the consequences of this variability is a wise policy.

Last edited by Poptech; 11-19-2007 at 09:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:55 AM
 
2,775 posts, read 2,850,892 times
Reputation: 2980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
A non issue? Really? The Climate is always changing the debate is on whether man caused it.

But NONE of this has to do with Pollution! I keep hearing people say this and talk about Smog or car exhaust. How completely out of touch are people with what is going on? This is ONLY about 'Greenhouse Gases' - mainly CO2!
You are absolutely unreasonable and not worth debating any further if you continue to try to pigeon-hole your proposed forum debate to a single small topic such as: 'I want to prove that man-kind's Co2 emissions have really not started the global warming trend everyone has talked about the past 10 years by sending everyone a bunch of Internet links.' Why? Because it's a topic not worth debating online by lay-people. If you're not a scientist who is actually studying that topic today and also peer-reviewing other scientific writings, then you're just wasting your own and your readers time regurgitating the politically motivated crap posted all over the Internet on this topic.

The only thing worth paying attention to right now which is related (but which you refuse to talk about)... is our weather patterns are changing not just in the US but also globally. Aside from that we know that we're blowing through limited natural resources and polluting the environment at the same time. We know that automobile emissions are bad for us, we also know that factory emmissions are bad for us. If you don't believe that, then go ahead turn on your car in your closed garage or less drastically why not build your home right next to and downwind from a large factory? Of course you believe and know it, everyone does. Of course these emissions are the ones the governments of the world are trying to curb (among many others) through agreements and treaties.

You probably have political motivations or just a giant ego driving you to want to post link after link to politically-spun articles on the Internet. Perhaps there's another reason - feel free to share and elighten about it. Whatever the motivation, fundamentally the point you are trying to drive home in this entire thread is worthless (because the audience on a forum like this isn't gaining anything from your links - the majority of us are not scientists, nor are we able to question or test your theories, nor the ones which you send links about) and more than that it distracts from the real issues which need to be addressed on this topic by the leaders of business and the world today.

Last edited by belovenow; 11-19-2007 at 09:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 09:13 AM
 
114 posts, read 124,375 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu View Post
You are absolutely unreasonable and not worth debating any further if you continue to try to try to pigeon-hole your proposed forum debate to a single small topic such as: 'I want to prove that man-kind's Co2 emissions have really not started the global warming trend everyone has talked about the past 10 years by sending everyone a bunch of Internet links.'

Why? Because it's a topic not worth debating by lay-people. If you're not a scientist who is actually studying that topic today and also peer-reviewing other scientific writings, then you're just wasting your own and your readers time regurgitating the politically motivated crap posted all over the Internet on this topic.
I am unreasonable? I am asking you to prove that man-made CO2 is causing climate change using the scientific method NOT computer models. Why is that unreasonable? Do you admit you are not scientifically sound enough to be able to do so? Maybe you should watch this:


Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming (Video) (9min)

I have provided plenty of scientists who are currently studying it today, they are in the list! Here are some of their opinions:

A Scientific Basis for Doubting Man-made Global Warming (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b9172d65-e431-4390-9660-954038395cbf - broken link) (Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Hawaii Reporter)
A Treaty Built on Hot Air, Not Scientific Consensus (http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/hotair.html - broken link) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, The Wall Street Journal)
Climate of Fear (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
Consensus is Nonsensus in Scientific Matters (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?dd6aa6cf-117c-4edf-9039-3004159a2185 - broken link) (Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
Don't Believe the Hype - Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
'Global Warming' as Myth (Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London)
Global Warming Delusions (Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, The Wall Street Journal)
Global Warming Insanity? (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PaulDriessen/2007/09/08/global_warming_insanity?page=full&comments=true - broken link) (Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Townhall)
Global Warming: Relax and Enjoy (Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D. Business Economics, The Brussels Journal, Belgium)
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? (Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, Canadian Free Press)
Global Warnings from the Ivory Tower (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, TCSDaily)
Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society (Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University)
Hypothetical Damages (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, The New York Sun)
Inconveniently, Climate Alarmists Are Wrong (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Independent Institute)
Meteorologist: Put Global Warming in Context (Joe Bastardi, B.S. Meteorology, Carolina Journal)
My Nobel Moment (John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, The Wall Street Journal)
No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance (John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, BBC)
Public misled (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Financial Post, Canada)
Prepare for Cooling, not Warming (Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, Canadian Free Press)
Should We Believe the Latest UN Climate Report? (Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, Canadian Free Press)
The Global Warming Deceptions (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2472c091-e930-4d24-90cd-ecbce4713693 - broken link) (Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Hawaii Reporter)
The not-so-disappearing polar bear (Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, The Daily Telegraph, UK)
The Real Climate Change Catastrophe (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_real_climate_change_catas trophe&ns=PaulDriessen&dt=10/21/2006&page=full&comments=true - broken link) (Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Townhall)
The Snows of Mount Kilimanjaro (Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, L'EXPRESS, France)
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Paleontology, The Daily Telegraph, UK)
US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies (Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, Canadian Free Press)
Why So Gloomy? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/ - broken link) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology MIT, Newsweek)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu View Post
The only thing worth paying attention to right now which is related... is our weather patterns are changing not just in the US but also globally. Aside from that we know that we're blowing through limited natural resources and polluting the environment at the same time. We know that automobile emissions are bad for us, we also know that factory emmissions are bad for us.

If you don't believe that, then go ahead turn on your car in your closed garage or less drastically why not build your home right next to and downwind from a large factory? Of course you believe and know it, everyone does.

Of course these emissions are the ones the governments of the world are trying to curb (among many others). No one intelligent is going to sit in front of their computer and waste time laboring away to try to convince you to change your mind. You probably have political motivations or just a giant ego driving you to want to post link after link to politically-spun articles on the Internet. It feels good to make a point doesn't it? Of course it does. But fundamentally the point you are trying to drive home in this entire thread is worthless and more than that it distracts from the real issues which need to be addressed on this topic by the leaders of business and the world today.
This is all emotional do you not read my posts? No they are NOT trying to curb pollution! My god man you have no idea what is going on do you?

The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

* Your car's catalytic converter removes about 95% of these pollutants.

Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

* Car Exhaust and Smog 'Pollution' is already covered in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended 1977, 1990)

How many of you have been fooled that this issue is about pollution?

Last edited by Poptech; 11-19-2007 at 09:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 09:25 AM
 
6,760 posts, read 10,439,454 times
Reputation: 2996
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Here you go, I'll let actual physicists who know far more than I do argue for me

Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level

Also, I'm pretty sure that, while I guess it's conceivable that "above water floating ice" could cause additional displacement by compressing the water (although that doesn't seem physically possible), I'm also ENTIRELY sure that the water level rises when I push the part of the ice floating above the water down into the water. Above-water ice doesn't displace water like the ice below it does, because it's not taking up the water's space, it's taking up the air's space. As far as I know, water is only displaced by the equivalent volume of the portion of the solid that actually intrudes where it would otherwise go, not by the part above that part.
If that is true and the floating ice melt is going to make a difference, shouldn't we have noticed a difference this year with cities going underwater? The Artic had a record low amount of ice pack left after the summer melt. Certainly this massive ice melt should have made the seas rise. I didn't catch any reports on the news of beach front properties going underwater though. I did however, see a few dozen alarmist reports suggesting that warming is accelerating much faster than previously thought. Only the alarmist views make the mainstream though, so thats no surprise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 09:37 AM
 
114 posts, read 124,375 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
If that is true and the floating ice melt is going to make a difference, shouldn't we have noticed a difference this year with cities going underwater? The Artic had a record low amount of ice pack left after the summer melt. Certainly this massive ice melt should have made the seas rise. I didn't catch any reports on the news of beach front properties going underwater though. I did however, see a few dozen alarmist reports suggesting that warming is accelerating much faster than previously thought. Only the alarmist views make the mainstream though, so thats no surprise.
Exactly! I have been living at the beach (east coast US) for over 10 years and have visited it for over 20 and it is still there where it has always been.

"What If All the Ice Melts?" Myths and Realities (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics)

"Arctic Ocean pack ice = 0.01 % Fraction of world ice - The melting of floating ice will not change sea level: the mass of this ice is equal to that of the water it displaces (watch the water level in a cup of floating ice cubes as they melt).

Based on what we know now, in the next 100 years a rise in sea level of 0.1 meters (4 inches) would not be surprising; those predicting changes of 0.5-2 meters (1.5-7 feet) are using flawed models.
"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 09:55 AM
 
4,740 posts, read 8,810,753 times
Reputation: 4073
The Earth's climate has cycled through ice ages and meltdowns. We can all agree on that (see the animated documentaries Ice Age and Ice Age 2: the Meltdown).

What is the Earth's perfect temperature? 1934 too hot? 1944 too cold?

The problem is that lefties want to dictate ineffective feel good 'solutions' like Kyoto. Or cap and trade. Or higher gas taxes to discourage consumption. Or destroy capitalism. And so on...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 09:59 AM
 
4,740 posts, read 8,810,753 times
Reputation: 4073
Heidi Cullen (Weather Channel) tells me that the world is ending when she can't even tell me if it's going to rain Wednesday - using the same type of tools for both analyses...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,576,678 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
It has not been proven otherwise. You have some people complaining about it but all they could come up with was a handful of names that have since been removed.
There's this, too

Deltoid » The Oregon Petition

And from a Scientific American article quoted in wikipedia:

"Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

Notice the "rather a small fraction" part.

Quote:
Skeptical Scientific Organizations:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, USA (31,000+ Members)
American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
These groups are in the minority... the first one has an obvious interest in sustaining their jobs/the energy industry, the second group probably involves the most politically-motivated climatologists one could find (appointed by governments and subject to their will), the Russians, I don't know, but like I said they're sharply in the minority.

Quote:
"...we often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations buckled to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science." - James Inhofe, B.A. Economics

There was never any vote on any of this, you have the presidents and the governing boards making statements and signing position statements without any vote on the issue by the organization's members. Now unless you can provide proof of a vote, you have simply presented propaganda.
It's not just the NAS and the AMS, it's also all of these guys

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

NASA GISS: The Global Warming Debate (broken link)

NCDC: Global Warming

How Does Climate Change?

Climate Change Policy

The IPCC report itself is extensively peer-reviewed

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"These assessments are based upon the peer-reviewed literature and are characterized by an extensive and open review process involving both scientific/technical experts and governments before being accepted by the IPCC."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,576,678 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
If that is true and the floating ice melt is going to make a difference, shouldn't we have noticed a difference this year with cities going underwater? The Artic had a record low amount of ice pack left after the summer melt. Certainly this massive ice melt should have made the seas rise. I didn't catch any reports on the news of beach front properties going underwater though. I did however, see a few dozen alarmist reports suggesting that warming is accelerating much faster than previously thought. Only the alarmist views make the mainstream though, so thats no surprise.
If you lived in South Asia, on the other hand...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,576,678 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
Disliking a source does not change the facts. They never debate the facts they just try to smear the source but no problem...

Major Newspapers:
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype (The New York Times)
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
Whose Ox Is Gored? (The Wall Street Journal)
Environmentalist Gore allowed zinc mine (USA Today)
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe (USA Today)

The U.S. Senate:
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)

Snopes:
George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion = True (Snopes)
Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)

How about from a Scientist who voted for Gore:
Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag (http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag - broken link) (Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology)
Al Gore isn't the subject of debate. Why are you guys always so obsessed with Al Gore? It's not like he created the theory, he just popularized it. He's irrelevant to the discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top