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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-18-2007, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,573,548 times
Reputation: 590

Advertisements

Quote:
Fishmonger, I believe you are changing the topic now, and I believe you are doing it because you lost. You have done nothing but claim that all of what Poptech is posting is "Right-Wing Propaganda". Poptech is calling Global Warming "Left-Wing Propaganda". The only difference between him and you, is he is providing credible resources. As soon as he provides them, you denounce them as propaganda and you do not believe it. Bear in mind these are scientists of the same education of those who do say there is such thing as Global Warming. How is one scientist better than another? Your arguments to this point have been "Left-wing, pro-Global Warming scientists are better because I believe them, and I am told by CNN that any anti-Global Warming is just propaganda."

I actually don't think Global Warming is REALLY a left-right issue at all, although people try to make it into that... I've never claimed that all global warming skeptics are right-wingers or propagandists, in fact I could show you some "denier" articles from the MOST left-wing of sources (counterpunch.org, for instance) if you like. One can make a reasoned argument (nonetheless one that I disagree with) against the "global warming consensus" without looking like a right-wing sheep (Michael Crichton is good at this) But PopTech and others make it into a left-right issue by

A. Providing "evidence" almost exclusively from right-wing propaganda think tanks, biased newssites, Sean Hannity and John Stossel, a la PopTech guy. The Heritage Foundation, The Heartland Institute, the NCPA, CNSNews, NewsMax, and WorldNetDaily are not and never will be "credible resources" any more than the National Inquirer is a credible resource.

B. Accusing the scientists who support the "consensus position" of being "liberal alarmists," "socialist enviro-wackos" who're all in a conspiracy to use environmental issues to redistribute all of America's wealth to Rwanda and create a world Marxist-Leninist government that will persecute the straight, white affluent male (aka Yeledaf) and command you to only use one roll of toilet paper per month

C. Being left-wing global warming crusaders who make unfounded accusations of every scientist who questions the consensus postion being "bought off by the Oil Companies," or "in the embrace of big business." Now... some or many of the anti-GW "scientists" are or have been, in fact, "in the embrace of the energy industry," but not all of them or necessarily a majority, so I don't place myself in this group.

Last edited by fishmonger; 11-18-2007 at 09:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2007, 09:56 PM
 
Location: South Central PA
1,562 posts, read 3,904,892 times
Reputation: 361
Global warming is a fact. It's measurable. There is hard scientific data that proves that it is happening.

The cause however is hardly a fact and is very easy to debate. The reason alarmists are claiming it's man made is because it's the only thing we have any ability to change. If you say it's based on the earth or some cosmic cycle, then we are helpless and the victim. And nothing scares people more than feeling like being a victim than actually being a victim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:12 PM
 
86 posts, read 133,072 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marodi View Post
Global warming is a fact. It's measurable. There is hard scientific data that proves that it is happening.

The cause however is hardly a fact and is very easy to debate. The reason alarmists are claiming it's man made is because it's the only thing we have any ability to change. If you say it's based on the earth or some cosmic cycle, then we are helpless and the victim. And nothing scares people more than feeling like being a victim than actually being a victim.

This is very true, and I guess calling Global Warming a myth was the wrong wording on my part. I know Global Warming is happening. However, the cause of it is, as of yet, unproven, and saying that man is the only cause of it denies all rational thought and fact. Also, there is no evidence to support the "disastrous" consequences of "Man-Made Global Warming".

Here is something that might sink a little better home with some of y'all:
YouTube - 20/20 Stossel- GMAB - Al Gore Global Warming Debate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,573,548 times
Reputation: 590
Nobody's saying that man is the only cause (such a thing would be retarded to say), but most scientists and scientific organizations are saying that man is a large enough cause that our influence will likely cause significant harm to much of humanity and other life on earth (especially in developing countries with low-lying, coastal megacities and areas subject to drought and famine) if we don't do anything to reduce it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:18 PM
 
86 posts, read 133,072 times
Reputation: 52
Check out NC Media Watch: More than my back yard thermometer and http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_an d_Ocean_v03_0.txt (broken link)

The second might not make sense, but it is basically a break down of temperature change over the past 20+ years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,573,548 times
Reputation: 590
Yearly fluctuations don't prove or refute much... you have to look at things over a longer time frame. 1999 and 2005, I believe, are regarded to be the hottest years in the history of recorded global temperature (although not necessarily regionally, in the US alone), and the general scientific opinion is that recent years have very likely been warmer than any period of time in the past millenium.

2004 Among the Hottest Years on Record | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/environment/hot_year_041216.html - broken link)

EDIT

Also this, from NASA

NASA - 2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:30 PM
 
86 posts, read 133,072 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Nobody's saying that man is the only cause (such a thing would be retarded to say), but most scientists and scientific organizations are saying that man is a large enough cause that our influence will likely cause significant harm to much of humanity and other life on earth (especially in developing countries with low-lying, coastal megacities and areas subject to drought and famine) if we don't do anything to reduce it.
And no one is saying "pump more CO2" into the air. We know that much of the stuff we put into the air is bad, thus the overhaul of old, and construction of newer, cleaner coal power plants, and the banning of the use of certain chemicals in production and use of certain products. We know that we are causing pollution.

And, "most" is a loose word, since that isn't founded on anything, and many of the "most scientific organizations" have scientists that say they actually are not involved in the decision. All of the cited "catastrophes" have happened in the past, far before man was emitting gases into the air from coal plants. Plagues, Famines, Droughts, and more happened throughout our history, on levels that killed thousands, if not more. And none of them can even be loosely attributed to man.

Also, one of the biggest things that global warming "experts" claim will happen when the glaciers melt is that sea levels will rise. Try this little experiment. Fill a glass of water about halfway with room-temperature water. Mark it on the glass with a marker. Then put ice-cubes in that water. Mark the line where the water rose to. After a few hours, when the ice is melted, see where the water level is, and mark it.

To save you the time, the level of water will not change at all after the ice-cubes melt. Multiply that exponentially, and you have the ocean and the glaciers. Even if the glaciers did melt (which are floating on the ocean), the sea level would not rise. And, even if all the snow in the world melted and drained into the ocean, the sea level would not even come close to rising the 20 feet that is claimed it would. You call these people "experts", yet they over-look proof that can be found in a 4th grade science book and proven by the above experiment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,573,548 times
Reputation: 590
You're assuming that all the ice is floating freely in the ocean. That isn't the case. Some glaciers are ON continents and islands and will slide off, other ice floats but is suspended with only part of the ice underwater (the liquid isn't displaced by the parts of the ice that are above the sea level). Do you really think that something like that would be overlooked? EDIT: Scratch what I just deleted, I looked it up and water actually does expand when it freezes and contract when it melts, but, once again, I'm sure that every climate scientist who predicts melting ice will raise water levels already KNOWS that.

And of course non-manmade catastrophes have happened in the past-- that doesn't mean we have no responsibility to change course if our current one is expected to increase their frequency and devastation.

Last edited by fishmonger; 11-18-2007 at 10:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:39 PM
 
86 posts, read 133,072 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Yearly fluctuations don't prove or refute much... you have to look at things over a longer time frame. 1999 and 2005, I believe, are regarded to be the hottest years in the history of recorded global temperature (although not necessarily regionally, in the US alone), and the general scientific opinion is that recent years have very likely been warmer than any period of time in the past millenium.

2004 Among the Hottest Years on Record | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/environment/hot_year_041216.html - broken link)
The below chart refers from 1979 to 2005. That is not yearly.

"The highest point on the graph occurs in 1998; from then on, if you connect the highest trends, you see a steep downward grade, which might be representative of a global cooling trend."

Photo

And that is based on the same satellite data that the pro-GW's use to try and prove Global Warming is a problem caused by man, which they fail to do.


The article you posted shows one year as being problematic, more-so than the hottest year on record, 1998, by an incredible margin. If the worst years on record are the hottest ones, why is a year substantially cooler than the hottest year so much more destructive?

Also, climate reports clearly show a period of stable climate from 2004 to now, why aren't we having the same problems now? You claim that we must not look at one year, but at many consecutive years, yet your only source shows the problems of only one year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:47 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,573,548 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickM View Post
The below chart refers from 1979 to 2005. That is not yearly.

"The highest point on the graph occurs in 1998; from then on, if you connect the highest trends, you see a steep downward grade, which might be representative of a global cooling trend."

Photo

And that is based on the same satellite data that the pro-GW's use to try and prove Global Warming is a problem caused by man, which they fail to do.


The article you posted shows one year as being problematic, more-so than the hottest year on record, 1998, by an incredible margin. If the worst years on record are the hottest ones, why is a year substantially cooler than the hottest year so much more destructive?

Also, climate reports clearly show a period of stable climate from 2004 to now, why aren't we having the same problems now? You claim that we must not look at one year, but at many consecutive years, yet your only source shows the problems of only one year.
You're still talking about yearly or short-term fluctuations (in weather, storms, climate, temparature), although you claim not to. It's not important whether hurricanes/tropical storms increase between 2004 and 2005, it's important whether they increase between 1900-1910 and 2000-2010. You can't extrapolate a "global cooling trend" from two years of data, from 2005-2007, that's ridiculous. Climate is always fluctuating -- it's long term trends we're worried about. As with the hurricane example, it isn't important whether 2007 is hotter than 2005 so much as it's important that 1990-2000 was considerably warmer than 1900-1910, or 1910-1920, or 1920-1930...
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