1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

More global warming happening here

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Richard King, Oct 30, 2008.

  1. Nov 27, 2009 #81 of 246
    Cholly

    Cholly Old Guys Rule! DBSTalk Club

    4,936
    54
    Mar 22, 2004
    Indian...
    Did you read the article quoted in my previous post? It strikes me that you have formed an opinion, much like a mindless lemming following the "experts" who deny that global climate change is indeed a fact. The big news is the fact that polar ice losses and the reduction of ice coverage in Greenland show losses of ice that predate the Ice Ages. (Or don't you believe in Carbon dating?).
    We can argue all we want about methane from cattle, pollution from termites, etc.
    The important undeniable fact to remember is the explosion of human population here on Earth, and the technology that has accompanied it (tremendous increase in the use of fossil fuels, etc.). To say that humans have had no effect on climate change is naive.
     
  2. Nov 27, 2009 #82 of 246
    HIPAR

    HIPAR Icon

    749
    0
    May 15, 2005
    Here in the Pocono Mountains of NE Pa, geologists will tell you this was the southern extent of the last ice age glaciers. I'm looking out the window and don't see any glaciers now. So they must have started melting 20,000 years ago; long before humanity could have caused the greenhouse.

    So the argument isn't about the reality of global warming but it's about spending ourselves into oblivion in a vain attempt to stop it.

    --- CHAS
     
  3. Nov 27, 2009 #83 of 246
    FogCutter

    FogCutter Godfather

    382
    0
    Nov 6, 2006
    So it turns out the 'consensus' is the fruit of deleting data, suppressing opposing views, and manipulation of peer reviewed journals.

    Does this mean that the Deniers were right all along? Well, at the moment, yup it does.

    The WSJ had a great article that Cap and Trade is dead. Thank heaven for that.

    The proponents can talk all they want and bury Al Gore in prizes so long as they don't affect policy.

    Anyway, it's nice to be vindicated.

    Ironically there's nothing criminal about what the dishonest climate scientists did, but hacking the emails and revealing the truth is a crime. Our system is really messed up.
     
  4. Nov 27, 2009 #84 of 246
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,602
    372
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The study used samples from 53.5 million years ago.
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26259851-401,00.html

     
  5. Nov 27, 2009 #85 of 246
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,602
    372
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    It's all good Supramom! As a former research assistant in grad school (in no way related to climate studies), I just think it's a shame researchers are possibly lying about their findings. I would of figured other researchers would have quickly disproved NASA and Goddard, since researchers LOVE to find out others were wrong & they were right. Researchers can be very egotistical. :lol:
     
  6. Nov 27, 2009 #86 of 246
    FogCutter

    FogCutter Godfather

    382
    0
    Nov 6, 2006
    Scientific fraud is more common than we think. That's why it's important to look at the motivation of a position's proponents. In the case of climate change, trillions of dollars are at stake. Lots of motivation to find a 'climate change' and make it a crisis.


    450 million years ago the earth was covered with glaciers from pole to pole, including the equatorial areas. In the last 2 million years there have been several major advances and retreats. Where I type from was under a mile of ice barely 10,000 years ago, but now there isn't a glacier within many hundreds of miles.

    Are some glaciers melting, yes indeed, as they pretty much have been for nearly half a billion years, but if past is prologue, they'll be back.

    And man has only been around for >>>1% of the time this ballet of ice has been happening. Over 90% of the world's glaciers melted before Homo took his first upright step, what we see now is a continuation of a natural trend.

    Like I say, they can choke the airwaves with global warming stories and dip Al Gore in bronze and stand him in Central Park as long as they forget cap and trade and keep away from meaningful policies.
     
  7. Nov 27, 2009 #87 of 246
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    For those of us old enough to remember, in the mid to late 1970s, TIME, Newsweek, other media outlets, and numerous scientists were screaming about global COOLING, warning us of the impending ice age. TIME even had a cover story with the title "The Ice Age is Coming." They discussed ad infinitum that the earth was getting colder, that we were about to enter a new ice age, that glaciers were advancing southward, etc. etc.

    Now, 30 years later, the same sources are saying we're getting hotter (not true), that Man is responsible for much, if not all, of this. Knowing that it takes this planet many millennia, even longer, to have any significant climatic changes worth noting, my question is this: how can we go from entering an ice age to "global warming" in the span of 30 years?

    Just goes to show that in both scenarios the so-called "experts" were full of schit. They lied in the 1970s in an attempt to control the lives of people; they're lying now for the same reasons.
     
  8. Nov 27, 2009 #88 of 246
    FogCutter

    FogCutter Godfather

    382
    0
    Nov 6, 2006
    Carl Sagan in one of the Cosmos episodes from the 1970s talks about global cooling. The newer releases edit that out, but I have the original.
     
  9. Nov 27, 2009 #89 of 246
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,684
    349
    Dec 9, 2006
    Being one that is "old enough", there was a time when everyone thought the earth was flat too.
    As more data comes in, science evolves.
    It's amazing how now we can date rocks, have ice core data and tree ring data.
    "In the '70s" the only way to date something was carbon dating, if it didn't have carbon, it couldn't be dated.
    "In the '70s" plate tectonics was just being accepted.
     
  10. Nov 27, 2009 #90 of 246
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    How convenient--edit out the BS so as not to let people know they've been misled all this time.
     
  11. Nov 27, 2009 #91 of 246
    AntAltMike

    AntAltMike Hall Of Fame

    3,789
    108
    Nov 20, 2004
    College...
    But of course, most of us don't actually remember things that we are old enough to have seen when they occurred, we just get to be "insiders" when someone else points out to us that we must have seen or heard something years ago because we are old enough to have seen or heard it..

    The American Meteriological Institute did a study of peer review articles published in the 1970s, and it found that such articles projecting global warming outnumbered those projecting global cooling by a factor of six to one and that the number of articles saying that present data and methodology was inadequate to reliably predict either outnumbered those that claimed a basis for their predictions.

    While I personally cannot support a policy of spending big money on something that is supported by junk science, all of the recent criticisms of that junk science are also junk science.

    The CO2 we put in the air tends to make the earth slightly warmer than it would be if we don't put it in the air. Some trajectory projections indicate that the earth is getting warmer, and estimates of the net effect of human made additions to the CO2 content of the atmosphere are that it will make the earth a little warmer than it otherwise would be. Big deal. The projections might be wrong; we can't say that the earth will be worse off for humans if, indeed, the earth's temperature is slightly higher a hundred years from now than it would be if we didn't emit as much CO2 as we expect to; and even if it would be somewhat worse off, we can't say whether the net benefit from ameliorating that effect is worth the cost of doing so. And of course, we can't reasonably expect poor countries, which include over half the people of the world, to assign the same social discount rate that we do to the possible beneficial future results obtained from present day sacrifices made to reduce future global warming.

    Basically, most countries will only take steps to reduce CO2 emmisions if we absorb those costs dollar for dollar... just like we do with the drug wars.
     
  12. Nov 27, 2009 #92 of 246
    barryb

    barryb New Member

    2,937
    3
    Aug 26, 2007
    You calling me old? :lol:

    Yes I was there.. and for those who were not, I offer these tidbits:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980050,00.html
    Political: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html
    (warning: .pdf link):http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
     
  13. Nov 27, 2009 #93 of 246
    barryb

    barryb New Member

    2,937
    3
    Aug 26, 2007
    I guess you really are that old. :lol:
     
  14. Nov 27, 2009 #94 of 246
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Do you remember which episode? I have most of the originals on VHS taped off a PBS station broadcast.

    He may also have been the one that used the flea analogy. Something to the effect that Mother Nature will shake us off like a bad case of the fleas when she's ready.

    I have confidence that 50,000 years after humanity is gone, there will be little, if any trace of us as the planet trods merrily along.
     
  15. Nov 27, 2009 #95 of 246
    4HiMarks

    4HiMarks Hall Of Fame

    1,575
    35
    Jan 21, 2004
    Laurel, MD
    If you believe scientists lie to control peoples' lives, you don't know very much about science.

    As veryoldschool pointed out, science changes as new data, new methods, and new technology come to light. Once upon a time, all the "experts" "knew" that the sun revolved around the Earth. Were they lying, too?

    Science is not about contol or money. It is about trying to discover the way the universe works. Scientists make guesses, and design experiments to see if they guessed right. When it comes to something as large and complicated as global climate, it is pretty much impossible to create a controlled experiment. THe best that can be done is create a computer model and see if it matches the data. As more data is gathered, computer models are refined, and computing power increases, different predictions can result. No one is lying to anyone.

    There really is no "debate about climate change" in the scientific community, any more than there is a "debate" about the validity of Evolutionary Theory. Have some politicians tried to turn current scientific thinking to their advantage? Probably. But the same can be said for certain paranoid scaremongers and other nutjobs.

    Will the planet survive climate change? You bet. Will the human race? That is a much more uncertain question. Although most of them probably deserve to rot in H311 as far as I'm concerned, I do have a fondness for certain members of that race, and would like to see them survive. Unfortunately, the idiocy of climate change deniers, 9/11 "truthers", moon landing hoax theorists, and other assorted loons could preclude that. I just hope I don't live to see it.
     
  16. Nov 27, 2009 #96 of 246
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    ^^^^^ There is no doubt in my mind that there is a great deal of politics in today's scientific community especially where it concerns seeking grants or other govenment or business contributions to research programs.


    Reminds me of possibly my all time favorite movie quote from "The Day The Earth Stood Still":

    'If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives.'
     
  17. Nov 27, 2009 #97 of 246
    4HiMarks

    4HiMarks Hall Of Fame

    1,575
    35
    Jan 21, 2004
    Laurel, MD
    That doesn't mean that it's true...
     
  18. Nov 27, 2009 #98 of 246
    AntAltMike

    AntAltMike Hall Of Fame

    3,789
    108
    Nov 20, 2004
    College...
    Betcha can't find one where Carl Sagan says, "Billions and billions". He says he never said that.
     
  19. Nov 28, 2009 #99 of 246
    Cholly

    Cholly Old Guys Rule! DBSTalk Club

    4,936
    54
    Mar 22, 2004
    Indian...
    Newspapers today had an article about the "Global Cooling" talk of the 1970 era. In checking back, they discovered that the number of climatologists claiming Global Warming outnumbered those claiming Global cooling by a factor of 6 to 1.

    I stumbled across the book "Super Freakonomics" in Target yesterday and was bemused by the section on Global climate change. It's an interesting read. They make a number of salient points that have been discussed in this forum. No revisionist theory, but a fair amount of opinion. They concur with findings that methane from cattle contributes more to warming than CO2. They claim that scientists are trying to come up with a means of making cattle become more like kangaroos (kangaroos don't pass methane). :D
     
  20. Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    27,280
    555
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    "In the '70s" I was playing ball every day of the week, drinking prodigious amounts of beer, and generally having a ball. Got divorced, got married, had a blast. Never paid much attention global anything. :lol:

    Rich
     

Share This Page