Did I miss something??

[dertsap]

look at stuff like pcb's , man made , can t get rid of it , insinerate it and the dioxide is worse than the product to begin with
pcb doesn t break down
animals were tested in the antarctic practacally untouched by man , the animals have high levels of pcb in their bodies (try testing average joe)
i saw a program where scientists are working to produce a type of molecule that will attack and destroy pcb's ,wonder how thats going to turn out

[b4500@dtcc.edu]

Where on this earth is incontrovertible proof that WE (humans) are causing "global warming" or climate change?

I am going to take this apart piece by piece for you.

What we can agree on?

1.) Climate change is most definitively a more accurate term. I merely used the nomenclature previously specified in the forum title.

2.) Recent history (20 years or so) have been warmer than say the previous 20 years. (In areas where temperature has been recorded)

3.) A non-polluting, plentiful, renewable energy source would be ideal and should be researched. (But as with all research, there may not be a realistic tangible success based on current levels of technology and the lack of funding for said research, that said, I encourage everyone to try)

What do I take issue with?

1.) The website, you cite, has an agenda. The article does use good sources; however, they use a narrow scope of focus to make a broad claim.

2.) The relevance of your education (not barring a degree with practical experience in environmental science), the amount of money you "could" make(absurd by the way, if you knew my hourly contract rate) and the ability to write an engineering paper (I must admit I didn’t read) has no bearing on your ability or qualifications to debate this issue. I personally don't care if you are a rocket scientist. Stick to the facts and only the facts and we will get along famously.

3.) Lack of continuity and focus:
In order to keep this debate focused (global warming and or climate change); please refrain from going off on tangents (e.g. hobbies, non-relevant publications, general ranting, etc.).

It also makes an easier read with less fluff to sort through.

4.) Making the following statement;

"I have no doubt human-activity-induced global warming is occurring right now - in fact I don't see how it could be avoided given the huge amount of greenhouse gases we're emitting."

This is a whopper! Let me introduce you "to my little friend" doubt!

I am going to ask you read this page. I am going to preface this article by telling you, that what you are going to read was generated by an agenda driven group, however, the article is well written and sites scientific journals and leading scientists, and I couldn't say it any better than they do (with out considerable effort). I am only asking that you take under consideration the facts of the article; not the conclusions drawn.

http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming6.htm

If this does not blow a huge hole in your rhetoric, please let me know and I will be happy to provide more facts to do so.

5.) "...I also have learned, through my renewable energy interest, to see past the cover some individuals put up to confuse or manipulate me."

Facts are not confusing. The only cover being put up here is in your head. I am not trying to manipulate you. It is not a big conspiracy. Now look at my pocket watch... your getting sleepy.... global warming does not exist..... When you awake you will be a Liberal Environmental Wacko.... oh damn too late.

"A bit of levity never hurt any debate." This is a direct quote from the guy being a Jerk.

To Arthur,
I sincerely wish you well. It sounds like you are involved in many wonderful things and I hope they bring you joy. My objective is that this debate will be informative, and if at the conclusion you still hold your misguided views, so be it. I will respectfully agree to disagree. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and focus on the facts, even when these facts are directly in opposition to your beliefs.

To all others,
It is obvious that Arthur is an educated and logical person, however, I would like to point out that even logical and learned people are susceptible to propaganda. Understand that Arthur and I probably are not too far off from one another ideologically (so far). We just disagree on what is fact and what is fiction.

There is no shame in admitting; the world is round and that the sun is the center of our solar system. Sooner or later the truth will emerge. I hope this debate will help you find your truth.

John

[fizzissist]

Thanks for the link, I'll add it to my list of "Evil Big Oil" (EBO) URLs. .... Along with my list of "Humans Are Killing The Penguins" URLs.

There's a couple of points you make that I think are really critical to keep in mind, and one of those is agenda. It's clear that EBO's agenda is to ensure continued growth and sales. Since I wanna drive my Hummer that drags along a boat, 4 ATVs, and a pair of dirt bikes (all of which spew GHGs in spades), I'll go along with that agenda with a smile.

Arthur here, bless his heart, is actively working to change the planet and protect us from ourselves. His agenda is noble.

But what of Al Gore's agenda? And Michael Mann and James Hansen?? AlGore flies all over the world to teach us we shouldn't fly all over the world spewing CO2!! Me thinks there's agendas on the other side of the equation.

One agenda, as I've posted in the sibling thread here, is that of the insurance companies, in whose best interests it is to spread fear....and raise premiums. The more convinced we are of impending doom, the more they can charge. (I accept that there is a measure of validity to that from a practical standpoint)

AlGore's agenda? Get elected on a platform that he's building?

There's another agenda that's sneaking up on us very quietly, one that has a very simple and direct agenda, that of money. There's a new stock market in town, and it's called ''Carbon Credits".

It won't fly without gubbmint regulation and mandates, and those won't happen unless we're all alarmed.

All that notwithstanding, the question is still "is the earth warming?" It well may be. The climate is definitely changing on a global scale, but our climate is hardly in equilibrium, and never has been.

Is it changing outside the range of 'normal' (if there is a norm) variability? Maybe, but the influence of human forcing is incredibly small given all the different and powerful factors at work.

Some big Hollywood star says one thing, and some young unknown says another. Who's right? Same thing is happening in science right now. Mann and Hansen are claiming they're right, but there's a host of other scientists who are publishing, in peer reviewed journals, diametrically opposed conclusions.

Arthur, keep doin' what you're doing. It's a good thing. John, keep showing that there's more to this than what makes a well produced movie and scares the crap out of everybody.

Me? I'll shut up now.

[b4500@dtcc.edu]

Fizzi,
Most if not all of what you say is true (I didn't fact check). We have no real understanding of the climate changes we are now experiencing. Is it normal? Are we in an upward cycle? What is "normal"? These are my points exactly.

I become discouraged when educated and logical (let’s not forget logical, sheesh...) people say with conviction or state as fact, that we (evil humans) are responsible for climate change. The fact is there just isn't enough information to say definitively that we are responsible and it is absurd to state as much.

Let’s pose a question to the masses;


Who among us want to polute anything on our planet?

Who among us is against clean, plentiful and renewable energy sources?

Answer: No one!

I don't want to discourage Arthur from his environmentally friendly pursuits. I would like to encourage them; however, let’s not run around spewing miss information in the process. Lets have an intelligent debate not one filled with rhetoric and bull poo.

Incontrovertible fact:

1.) There is not a significant body of research, (emphasis on NOT) that hands down, demonstrates that climate change is anything more than "NORMAL".

I encourage scholars and scientists to continue the evaluation the global climate. We obviously don't know enough about it yet. But until then; drop the alarmist attitude and focus on being productive. For you Arthur that might be engineering the next generation electric car. For you Fizzi; it might be pointing out Al Gore (our beloved inventor of the Internet... Thank God for Al Gore!) is full of dog poo!


I am looking forward to more stimulating debate.

I am also taking contributions to fund my new, well produce movie to entertain the masses; Title? "Global Warming and you!" Why you don't necessarily have to buy a house on the coast of Florida to have beech front property.


Respectfully,

John

[Keskin]

Well fizzissist nailed it by saying that even the mighty expert scientists come to opposing conclusions.
Regarding global warming iam certainly a noob but in fact many history changing inventions were made by dilettants because most of the complex scientific issues are mostly bases on a simple idea and most simple ideas can be explained with complex scientific theories.

And my theory about global warming is that i dont care if the pollution will be reduced because people believe in global warming or another theory, pollution is bad and thats not a theory, thats a fact.

As i said iam not an expert regarding global warming but as i get it, the point of the bruderheim article is that they are saying that its not really getting warmer or at least that there is not enough proof but i didnt see one word about "global dimming".

Global dimming more or less counters the effects of global warming. Dimming means that tiny particles (also caused by pollution!) in the atmosphere are reducing the ammount of sunrays reaching the earth, like a layer of fog.
The scientists who came up with this theory also made experiments to prove it and they claim if the whole world would stop the pollution instantly we would experience a sudden (within weeks/months) jump in temperature and would be exposed to the real grade of our global warming.

Nice scenario for a hollywood blockbuster.

Well in this case the temperature charts and diagrams in that article would be immediately in need of a update.

[lockeyone]

I too don't believe the hype on global warming. You may want to listen to this wisconsin public radio show earlier this week that just seemed to make more sense to me then most of the other stuff coming at us.
----------------------------
http://wpr.org/webcasting/audioarchi...y.cfm?Code=jca

Tuesday
1/23/2007
8:00 AM
Joy Cardin - 01/23C
According to Joy Cardin's guest, global warming is a natural phenomenon that occurs approximately every 1500 years, and is not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases.

Guest: Dennis T. Avery, senior fellow, Hudson Institute. Co-author, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield)

[dertsap]

i haven t totally bought into global warming either but we really are messing things up

to more or less quote George Carlon the comedian ,

what makes us so arrogant to think we can save the planet , the world is forever changing and replenishing itself , and it will be 100% again once it rids itself of us

i think we are only helping our own demize

[Stepper Monkey]

C'mon, Climate change is happening. Even if, say, personally, you would prefer to listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly belaboring "liberal conspiracies" and quoting limited and highly questionable "research" funded by corporations to cast doubt over the findings of say, every scientist on the planet, it's getting harder and harder to do when even our decider-in-chief is mentioning climate change as a problem in the State of the Union address.

This simply isn't a partisan issue. It's a fact. Now, HOW we react to it, and what needs to be done - if anything at all - or if we are even the cause of it, may be a partisan issue, but to say climate change just isn't happening at all is beyond stupid at this point.

Now while liberals always have a problem getting thier head out of the clouds long enough to accomplish anything realistically practical whatsoever, it is even harder lately to get neo-cons to pull thier heads out of the sand and acknowledge any basic reality not pre-approved by thier political dogma. Especially self-apparent obvious realities, as then they require complex layers of conspiracy and jingoism to deny.

Of course, this post won't actually accomplish anything, as the Ann Coulter worshippers just ignore any unapproved viewpoint as unamerican terroristic propaganda anyway.

[fizzissist]

"...as the Ann Coulter worshippers just ignore any unapproved viewpoint as unamerican terroristic propaganda anyway."

...speaking of unapproved.....

"The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists. "
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-88824bb8e528

[b4500@dtcc.edu]

There is no question climate change is happening. The questions are do we (evil humans) have anything to do with it? Is the climate change we are experiencing anything out of the norm?

The rest of you post is pure rhetoric and crap. If you want anyone to take you seriously... try citing an example of what O'Reilly or Limbaugh has said that you believe to be inaccurate and then cite a factual example that contradicts their argument. Other than your power of observation; "climate change is happening..." Duh....) you are uninformed or incapable of factual debate. Example statement below.

"Even if, say, personally, you would prefer to listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly belaboring "liberal conspiracies" and quoting limited and highly questionable "research" funded by corporations to cast doubt over the findings of say, every scientist on the planet..."

The above is an example of a non truth. This is how you can tell it's a non truth. The author offers no substantiation, no real world proof, and no facts to support his claim. This is a perfect example of someone stating opinion as fact.

"..highly questionable "research"...". What research? Where is it? How did you come to the conclusion that it is questionable? Where is the support for your statement?

"..every scientist on the planet...” This one is an unintelligent statement. If every scientist could agree on why there is global temperature change this forum wouldn't exist. This debate wouldn't exist. Again I ask; where is the support for your statement?

Could it be there is no support for your position? How can your views be taken seriously, if you are unwilling or unable to support them?

To all Environment Wackos,
Keep it coming. I would ask that you guys step it up a little and bring your "A" game. The recent posts by your friends have been lacking of substance; dismal attempts of persuasion at best. Let’s try not to make it too easy for me.

Respectfully,

John

[fizzissist]

John,
Sorry, but I have to correct you on a few points....

1) The word 'crap' is a euphemism, but I understand it's choice due to the political correctness requirements of the forum

2) He states "..every scientist on the planet..". Yes, it's a 'non-truth', but to be more accurate, it's an example of an absolutely ridiculous claim. Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at UCSD was the one who initiated the idea that 1000 scientists are in consensus, and Dr. Benny Pieser promptly ripped the claim apart.

Of the 200 or so 'scientists' who's work comprise the IPCC's TAR, only about 33 are actually climate scientists. (ref: Dr. Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia)

His claim is flat out ignorant and not researched AT ALL!

3) You're letting him off the hook on the "highly questionable research" statement.
We need only look at Mann's Hockey Stick (MBH98) and the subsequent battle between he and Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick. Here's a perfect example of the LACK of scientific consensus, and questionable research on the part of the PRO-AGW camp!!

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL021750.shtml

Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford, who brought us the scare of an impending ice age back in the early '70s is now taking the side of Mann et. al. and exaggerating the claims of impending global warming doom....exaggerating by his own admission!!

"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest."

- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

I hope I haven't been too harsh on you John, I know you have good intentions. But sometimes you just gotta take these idiots to the woodshed.

---------------------------------------------------
Consensus? Not Hardly....

For AGW
....We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities” ....
http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf

Anti AGW
..."Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...e-4db87559d605

[b4500@dtcc.edu]

You forget Fezzi, I am an evil conservative. We have no heart therefore, we can not feel. You can always tell who we are. We're the ones that back up our statements with more than just rhetoric.

I thought my response was measured and accurate and had a good chance of raising Monkey Boy’s ire. I need one of these bozos to stand up and fight (I didn’t want to chase him off with those annoying facts of yours, Thanks a lot by the way… sarcastically!).

They (Leftist Wackos) are simply making it a one sided debate. There is the true injustice.

To address "...letting him off the hook" I am going to let the next one (misguided Wacko) "have it". If for no other reason than to redeem myself in your eyes (laughing uncontrollably).

To All others,
Please step up to the plate and take a swing. I hate to have to beg, but damn! If you are willing to have an intelligent conversation and SUBSTANTIATE your statements Bring It On!

In the immortal words of Michael Buffer....

“LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLE!"

Respectfully,

John