Global Warming Didn't Exist In The US Until 1979! (environmentalist, politicians, leader)

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by ian6479

Look.. its like evolution. Most of us accept it is fact even though there are many that claim it is false. Elements of any scientific theory can be adjusted, enhanced or even disproven, but the overall conclusion is accepted by scientific community as factual. I don't think I've heard of ANY climatologists that reject global warming.

The fact is that the earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change. Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004. Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

How much we contribute to global warming in terms of carbon emissions is being debated (and rightfully so) but it doesn't change the fact that global warming is real. The right wing usually refer to issues largely covered by the MSM as political or liberal hysteria, but the fact is that much of the media has embraced global warming because of the evidence behind it and the effects.

A report from the IPCC stated this:

The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

A follow-up report by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on wildlife.

• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

First, the bold is wrong. A hypothesis must stand a test of validation. It must consistently produce support and all deviations must be explained and accounted for. Once this is achieved, it can be formulated into a theory.

A hypothesis that fails, does not have its divergence explained through validated reasoning, is not a theory. Consensus that a hypothesis is promising is not a validation. It is not an element of the Scientific Method, rather a social political one. Some scientist may agree, but that does not prove or disprove a hypothesis. That is a fallacy. The position of authority using experience is a credible support to a position when we establish assumptive measures, but again it does not prove or disprove a hypothesis. That would be another fallacy of appealing to authority.

As should be quite apparent with the errors found in research, it would be foolish to assume that a hypothesis that has not been validated is correct. Scientists should retain skepticism, it is the cornerstone of their work and yet over time, it has been proclaimed as unaccepted, yet keep in mind it is only in social political realms to which this is established which is an area that has no place or relevance in scientific inquiry.

I am not arguing against global trends of warming. That would be a straw man argument created to evade the issue. AGW is the issue and the significance of warming trends concerning historical records.

As you can see with my above posts, measurements are in question. Without proper observed records, then attempting to analyze patterns for prediction is meaningless. The biggest problem with the media issue of this is that only supportive factors to a bias are being reported. Divergence is being discarded, due diligence ignored. This is unacceptable science.

The AR4 has many assumptive errors in it. You must read the actual report, compare it to the research and read the reviewers comments.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

This site discusses the science. Not the assumptive conclusions, but the actual data and it compares it to the findings claimed. There is an entire section on the IPCC's reports. You will find more than simple summaries and you will see the claims made on certain research points are weakly speculated relying on data which has been shown to be inconsistent, error prone and poorly documented and archived. You will also see the current issues and problems with the peer review in that field and the constant deviation from proper scientific process.

That summary is highly assumptive. When you pick one of the claims made in that summary and show the research from the IPCC that supports that claim, things get a bit wishy washy. This is where the summary begins to depart from the actual research. The research does not make the same conclusions that the summary does. Also, in some of the cases, you will notice that the IPCC recognizes this, yet claims that the reader can easily discern this even when it is not properly explained. The Hockey stick, rather MBH98 (Mann's work) is still used in the report even though it was found to be invalid. The IPCC claims that the "errors" do not change the overall issue. Sorry, but that is not how a scientist handles things, rather that is how a politician handles it.

I am willing to tit for tat the points with you in that report if you are willing to, but I will not accept fallacy based discussion so if you are simply going to wave away any contest to the claims without properly showing why it logically invalidates something I provide, then I won't waste my time. This board is filled with people who think a discussion involves playing shadow games of deceit and character assassination.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

Actually all major scientific professional organization that study climate change have come to consensus conclusions about the existence of anthropogenic global warming. I think it's more the Christian fundamentalists who don't believe it because it's not in the Bible.

You use words like "all" to proclaim your position and that alone shows your making things up as you go. I keep posting valid concerns of the issue that are quantifiable and yet you proclaim them wrong with a wave of your wand. The interesting thing is that your unwillingness to accept valid conflicts in the position of AGW likens your response to that of the very thing you accuse those like me who properly apply logical and measurable refutation.

One can only conclude that it is because your position itself is illogical and founded on fallacies as its support.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by Nomander

You use words like "all" to proclaim your position and that alone shows your making things up as you go. I keep posting valid concerns of the issue that are quantifiable and yet you proclaim them wrong with a wave of your wand. The interesting thing is that your unwillingness to accept valid conflicts in the position of AGW likens your response to that of the very thing you accuse those like me who properly apply logical and measurable refutation.

One can only conclude that it is because your position itself is illogical and founded on fallacies as its support.

I'll accept valid scientific research that highlights areas of climate change that need to be refined. The Heartland Institute doesn't publish such research, the Senate Republicans don't publish such research, there aren't 30 thousand research scientists who dispute global warming.

And through this all there are no mainstream scientific professional organization (that where scientists actually assemble to exchange views) that support what you're saying. Sorry, I guess it's an "Inconvenient Truth."

[GOPATTA2D]

Originally Posted by Nomander

You use words like "all" to proclaim your position and that alone shows your making things up as you go. I keep posting valid concerns of the issue that are quantifiable and yet you proclaim them wrong with a wave of your wand. The interesting thing is that your unwillingness to accept valid conflicts in the position of AGW likens your response to that of the very thing you accuse those like me who properly apply logical and measurable refutation.

One can only conclude that it is because your position itself is illogical and founded on fallacies as its support.

I won't quote them all, but "Post(s) of the day!"

[odanny]

You can't have this............

Top government scientists on Tuesday warned that climate change already is wreaking devastating changes on the United States, threatening the Southwest with blistering heat, the Atlantic Coast with dangerous hurricanes and the Midwest with flooding.

The alarms were delivered in a nearly 200-page report, begun by the Bush administration, that documents how the changing climate is reshaping U.S. coastlines and could affect American agriculture.

The report finds that U.S. temperatures rose about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 50 years, and it projects that without major changes there could be an additional 2 to 11 degrees of additional warming this century.

Without this...........

Some Republicans, including Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, have expressed skepticism that global warming is both real and a product of human activities.
New report stresses immediacy of global warming

James Inhofe was the point man for the environment of the Bush Administration . A serial denier, he is a slave to the fossil fuel industry, as are most Republicans. Their spokespersons in the rightwing media feed the distortions about climate change to their unknowing, sheeplike listeners, who turn a scientific issue into a partisan political issue.

[Glitch]

Anthropological global warming is the myth. Global warming, however, is no myth. Since the last ice-age ended some 15,000 years ago the planet has enjoyed a much warmer climate than in the 30,000 years prior. If you really want to take it to extremes, the planet has been slowly cooling for the last 4.5 billion years. To presume that humans have anything to do with these global climate changes is the epitome of arrogance and conceit.

[odanny]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Anthropological global warming is the myth. Global warming, however, is no myth. Since the last ice-age ended some 15,000 years ago the planet has enjoyed a much warmer climate than in the 30,000 years prior. If you really want to take it to extremes, the planet has been slowly cooling for the last 4.5 billion years. To presume that humans have anything to do with these global climate changes is the epitome of arrogance and conceit.

Projection. Again. Conservatives practice, unknowingly, almost daily on this forum.

To consider that man made pollution, and I stress CONSIDER, is somehow "the epitome of arrogance and conceit" is, as a statement on its own face, perhaps the epitome of denial.

The scientific community that has been attacked, derided, and ignored by the likes of right wing Republicans and their propagandists in the media know that pollution plays a role in changing weather through its effect on weather cycles, and that pollution indeed traps heat.

Here's a hint: People like Inhofe don't know **** about science. That he attacks mans contribution towards this end should CONFIRM that man contributes. There is a reason he is both a denier and staunch critic, and he DOES KNOW about corporate lobbyists, especially those flush with oil lobby "contributions"

"Skeptics" usually mean paid shills, hacks, and other "experts" who's ONLY role(s) are to cast doubt and create confusion.

Oh, and Glitch, Alaska is experiencing climate change three times as great as the lower 48

[mississauga75]

Originally Posted by odanny

Projection. Again. Conservatives practice, unknowingly, almost daily on this forum.

To consider that man made pollution, and I stress CONSIDER, is somehow "the epitome of arrogance and conceit" is, as a statement on its own face, perhaps the epitome of denial.

The scientific community that has been attacked, derided, and ignored by the likes of right wing Republicans and their propagandists in the media know that pollution plays a role in changing weather through its effect on weather cycles, and that pollution indeed traps heat.

Here's a hint: People like Inhofe don't know SH_T about science. That he attacks mans contribution towards this end should CONFIRM that man contributes. There is a reason he is both a denier and staunch critic, and he DOES KNOW about corporate lobbyists, especially those flush with oil lobby "contributions"

"Skeptics" usually mean paid shills, hacks, and other "experts" who's ONLY role(s) are to cast doubt and create confusion.

Even assuming man made emmissions are the significant causal factor for recent global warming - which i'm still not convinced, there isn't much that can meaningfully be done about it as emerging nations are building coal plants with reckless abandon.

I read in Macleans magazine that if every household in N.A were to replace incandescent bulbs with more efficient lightbulbs such as flourescent that this huge measure would have a net savings to global energy usage equivalent to two Chinese coal plants. The Chinese are building one coal plant a week!!

The only thing you can ever win is a moral victory.

[odanny]

Originally Posted by mississauga75

I read in Macleans magazine that if every household in N.A were to replace incandescent bulbs with more efficient lightbulbs such as flourescent that this huge measure would have a net savings to global energy usage equivalent to two Chinese coal plants. The Chinese are building one coal plant a week!!

Aint it great? They are working overtime to catch the Americans.

America, still the world leader......

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...........in pollution.

[mississauga75]

Originally Posted by odanny

Aint it great? They are working overtime to catch the Americans.

America, still the world leader......

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...........in pollution.

By the end of the year China will be the largest energy consumer in the world. India will also usurp the U.S in a few years. They don't give a rats behind about pollution.