More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent (Global warming merged)

[Stealth Hunter]

Trying to talk to Subman about GW is absolutely useless. You will have far better luck convincing Moon Hoaxers or 9/11 truthies that there is no conspiricy.

I know. I'm glad we don't have a lot of people in the science department with his attitude.:yep:

Everyone knows that ANY taxes collected on sources of carbon need to go into solar, wind, fusion research.

That's where I'd put them to use. We're going to run out of oil in about a century anyway. Might as well start working on alternatives.

[baggygreen]

In a discussion with a lecturer of mine a number of years ago, he let me in on a secret. We were discussing my grade for an essay written regarding the world's treatment of NK (obviously, mainly focussed on the Chinese and US actions).

It was a stellar piece, thoroughly researched, well supported with facts garnered through reputable sources, and it was strongly in favour of the US position. I scored a paltry 28%.

The reason behind it, he told me, was the target audience. that Uni was very left-wwing, and very very anti-bush. That i wrote a great piece was not in question, however it wasn't the answer his faculty head wanted to read, and so was punished. He himself espoused very left-wing sentiment in his lectures, but he revealed to me that he was in fact a conservative, however wouldn't have his job if he didn't conform to the expectations of his bosses.

The point of that story is that I take people's degrees and places of study with a grain of salt. So much of it is subjective (yes, even with stats, you can selectively use them to get a point across).

I don't care where James Allen studied, nor anyone elsse for that matter. You get to the top by telling people what they want to hear. phew, I feel better now :)

On the matter of GW, we've got relatively accurate global records for around 50 years. Before that, lets be honest, there were various stations scattered however they were not what can be today called resoundlingly accurate. So, on the whole, we're working off 50 or 60 years of increasingly solid data that the earth's temperature has risen a degree or 2, fahrenheit.

On what basis do the GW supporters claim that this is a bad thing? Coral reefs dying? Who is to say they aren't a product of a fairly cool period in the earths history which is coming to an end? Polar ice caps melting? Who is to say that over the earth's history, they aren't just a seasonal thing, or again, just the product of a cooler period in the earths history?

We simply can't and don't know. Looking at previous ages, we've seen times when CO2 was through the roof, allowing huge numbers of plants and subsequently animals to evolve. We've had ice ages, we've had times when it was too hot to be on land. It is a constantly changing thing.

none of this is saying lets not look for cleaner burning fuels etc, because I'm all for that by choice, but I just think GW is man wanting to feel like he's bigger than he is, that he can control things that he can't control.

[Stealth Hunter]

Baggy... while I don't entirely agree, I love that you did research the subject.:up:

[baggygreen]

Hey, feel free to disagre mate - thats the joy of debate. On this one, we could both be wrong, who knows - noone does. nothin wrong with being civil though :D

[nikimcbee]

According to this guy its up to Barry to save the world in the next 4 years or else were dooooomed !
Fortunately for us, Super barry and his red cosmic krusaders, have great plans, such as socialism to save us from haliburtoncheneyrumsfeld and their henchmen!

http://www.alternateversion.com/home/uploads/Comics/Batman_panel_-_Robin_what_have_I_done_to_you.jpg


Wonder twin powers activate: Form of Marxist professor..... Form of Trial lawyer!

Take that capitalism! biff bamm


OMG, look what I found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgsQEx5VcSc

[Enigma]

zzzzzzz......:dead:

[nikimcbee]

We are all safer now that they are on the same team:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPauW-uk-5g&feature=related

[heartc]

Baggy... while I don't entirely agree, I love that you did research the subject.:up:

Well, he just told you the same thing. We don't know jack in reality and a good chunk of your sources are probably commies. It's just that some people have grown more tired of having the crap preached to them all the time than others.

[Digital_Trucker]

Get a sense of humor, SH. Do you know how to interpret :D? Science can be right about one thing and totally clueless about another.
Such as?
You seriously can't think of anything that "science" has been incorrect about? Take a look at the field of medicine, for one. The scientists that we trust with our health can't make up their mind from week to week what's good or bad for us.


Global warning is hardly the same as the internet and refrigerators
Yeah, no s***.:roll:
You were the one who brought up science in the light of the internet and modern conveniences, so please roll your eyes at yourself.

BTW, I noticed you used the word "believe" in your statement about how the vast majority of scientists feel about global warning. Isn't that the word that so many throw back at anyone who is religiously inclined.

Note the "and/or has shown evidence" part as well, thank you.:up:
Evidence is hardly proof. That's why science is such a guessing game. Scientists look at numbers and go :hmm:, I wonder what could be causing this and make theories (aka educated guesses) concerning the cause. Thus the original comment I made that started our little discussion.

Numbers are a strange commodity. They can be massaged to prove anything you'd like to prove. The earth has been here for millions of years and you want to base your "proof" of global warming on a couple hundred years of data?
Earth is 4 billion years old, not a few million years old; 4.54 billion years old to be precise. And why are you only commenting on the century temperatures data? It alone is meaningless, but when you add it in with all the other things like current temperatures, coral bleaching rates, etc., it starts to actually come together to provide proof.
According to current science earth is 4.54 billion years old. Each of those billions of years contains millions of years. Note that I didn't say that earth is "merely millions of years old". Your point only goes to prove my point. A couple hundred years of temperature data compared to 4.54 billion years of the existence of Earth is hardly proof of anything. Current temperatures are even more meaningless because they are of a shorter time span than the centuries of data. When current temperatures are dropping, are you not one of the first to say that this is a temporary anomaly? As for providing proof, perhaps you should define proof. In 500 years, todays proof will be tomorrows joke (take a look at some of the theories that were widely believed and evidence had been seen of of 500 years ago and you'll understand what I'm getting at.

We flat out cannot prove that global warming is man made based on the miniscule amount of data we have to work with and anyone who tells you that you can is afflicted with delusions of grandeur.
Nobody is saying it's all man's fault. We are having a profound impact on our climate, but it's also natural. Earth has gone through these cycles before.

By the way, read up a little more about the research we've done into climate change. You might want to change that part about a "miniscule amount of data" once you do.:up:
I have read some of the research into climate change. I find it very interesting. I also find the amount of data to be miniscule in comparison to what is needed to reach a definitive conclusion. BTW, who is this "we" you speak of? Do you have a camel in your pocket or do you actually do scientific research into climate change?

I will not argue that we are having an impact on our climate. I will, however, argue that the use of the word profound in that respect is a little premature.

When you have a couple thousand years of data come back with your "facts".
:roll:


Oh, the .54 in the age of the Earth was rounded in the hundredths place.
As was the comment regarding millions of years. I am perfectly aware that two decimal places implies rounding to the hundredths place because that's all science can do is round to it's nearest estimate.

I so wish to thank your for helping me coin a phrase regarding folks who so blindly believe that current science has the answer for everything. You are so much like the "religious right" that I shall now consider you the "scientific right". :roll:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I live in Wales. I say bring on global warming! :lol::lol:

[Onkel Neal]

Honestly, I don't see how any of you can be so passionate about this topic. Some of you routinely post gotchas threads on GW as if that wraps up the debate. None of you is engaged in scientific research on this topic; last time I checked, noon of you are scientists, so all you know is what you read on the web or hear in the news :) There are so many nuts on both side pro and con of GW (Al Gore,the nutty greenies, the nutty right wing talking heads), it sounds like some of you just make up your mind what you want to believe and that's it. Who the heck knows if GW is manmade, or not, and to how much of a degree. Even the scirentists are split. Isn't there anything else you can talk about?

[Jimbuna]

Ballet http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6324/uowyaydh5wc2zm2.gif



http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/403/danceballerina31zc9.gif http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8384/danceballerina41rv3.gif http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/7871/danceballerina21ey3.gif

http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/ballet.jpg

[Stealth Hunter]

Baggy... while I don't entirely agree, I love that you did research the subject.:up:

Well, he just told you the same thing. We don't know jack in reality and a good chunk of your sources are probably commies. It's just that some people have grown more tired of having the crap preached to them all the time than others.

It's a conspiracy.:lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

Afternoon, fellas.

Get a sense of humor, SH. Do you know how to interpret :D? Science can be right about one thing and totally clueless about another.
Such as?
You seriously can't think of anything that "science" has been incorrect about?

You said "clueless" in your original post, not "incorrect". I can think of plenty of things that have been incorrect with it, but nothing that is based off cluelessness...:hmm:

Take a look at the field of medicine, for one. The scientists that we trust with our health can't make up their mind from week to week what's good or bad for us.

Some of them can't, but you should generally trust the majority before the minority.:up:


Global warning is hardly the same as the internet and refrigerators
Yeah, no s***.:roll:
You were the one who brought up science in the light of the internet and modern conveniences, so please roll your eyes at yourself.

But I didn't say global warming and these utilities were the same, now did I?

BTW, I noticed you used the word "believe" in your statement about how the vast majority of scientists feel about global warning. Isn't that the word that so many throw back at anyone who is religiously inclined.

Note the "and/or has shown evidence" part as well, thank you.:up:
Evidence is hardly proof.

That's just wrong all the way around. Any junior scientist would tell you that even the smallest bits of evidence act as proof.

That's why science is such a guessing game. Scientists look at numbers and go :hmm:, I wonder what could be causing this and make theories (aka educated guesses) concerning the cause.

You might want to read up on the scientific method. It's actually much more complex than that. It's not a guessing game, and you don't just make baseless assumptions and call it a theory...:roll:

Numbers are a strange commodity. They can be massaged to prove anything you'd like to prove. The earth has been here for millions of years and you want to base your "proof" of global warming on a couple hundred years of data?
Earth is 4 billion years old, not a few million years old; 4.54 billion years old to be precise. And why are you only commenting on the century temperatures data? It alone is meaningless, but when you add it in with all the other things like current temperatures, coral bleaching rates, etc., it starts to actually come together to provide proof.
According to current science earth is 4.54 billion years old. Each of those billions of years contains millions of years. Note that I didn't say that earth is "merely millions of years old".

Just saying millions is what makes it incorrect. You would have to translate it over into technical explanatory mathematics; ever hear one of those numbers like "19 million billion"?

Your point only goes to prove my point. A couple hundred years of temperature data compared to 4.54 billion years of the existence of Earth is hardly proof of anything.

That's actual documentation by scientists. If you examine sediment layers in the sea, you can actually see a record of weather and climate patterns from the past. In fact, that's how we figured out the average temperature for the planet during the large Ice Age we had thousands of years ago.

Current temperatures are even more meaningless because they are of a shorter time span than the centuries of data.

They're actually meant to be kept separate, the recent temperature changes and previous temperature changes I mean. So really, they're not meaningless. In fact, they're quite important when figuring up averages.

As for providing proof, perhaps you should define proof.

Proof: any confirmed evidence that helps to establish a factual basis of something.

In 500 years, todays proof will be tomorrows joke (take a look at some of the theories that were widely believed and evidence had been seen of of 500 years ago and you'll understand what I'm getting at.

Five hundred years ago, we didn't have the ability to take any scientific statement out of the hypothesis stage. They didn't have computers, satillites, any realistic concept of gravity, and they were pretty much dominated by religion, which supressed enlightenment. Hell, Robert Hooke hadn't even seen the first cell yet, and the microscope was still a fairly distant invention. Sure, they knew some things about science (there had been several notable experiments with disease and chemical reactions), but overall, they were incredibly primitive.

Saying that the evidence for something like global warming will be a joke 500 years from now just because that's the way it worked out for the old science of 500 years ago is just an incredibly ridiculous assumption all the way around. We're sure to learn a lot more, but it's not just suddenly going to disappear over night, especially when we know that the climate is changing (the debate just being over whether or not it's our fault).

We flat out cannot prove that global warming is man made based on the miniscule amount of data we have to work with and anyone who tells you that you can is afflicted with delusions of grandeur.
Nobody is saying it's all man's fault. We are having a profound impact on our climate, but it's also natural. Earth has gone through these cycles before.

By the way, read up a little more about the research we've done into climate change. You might want to change that part about a "miniscule amount of data" once you do.:up:
I have read some of the research into climate change. I find it very interesting. I also find the amount of data to be miniscule in comparison to what is needed to reach a definitive conclusion.

Well I'll let you have your opinion there.

BTW, who is this "we" you speak of? Do you have a camel in your pocket or do you actually do scientific research into climate change?

I'm referring to the scientists. It's just a figure of speech.

I will not argue that we are having an impact on our climate. I will, however, argue that the use of the word profound in that respect is a little premature.

My intended context was to show that we are having some effect, however great or little it may be.

When you have a couple thousand years of data come back with your "facts".
:roll:


Oh, the .54 in the age of the Earth was rounded in the hundredths place.
As was the comment regarding millions of years.

You would have had to expand on the millions, though.

I am perfectly aware that two decimal places implies rounding to the hundredths place

I know you're not igorant. My point was that the number had just been rounded because the actual number is very long.

because that's all science can do is round to it's nearest estimate.

They rounded the number to keep it short. The actual one is very long...

Would you rather have the full number or the short one?

I so wish to thank your for helping me coin a phrase regarding folks who so blindly believe that current science has the answer for everything.

That's a laugh. Where did I ever say science had the answer for everything? I never did. You ass-ume that I think it does.

It doesn't have an answer for everything, but it does for a lot of things...:up:

You are so much like the "religious right" that I shall now consider you the "scientific right". :roll:

:rotfl:

Assumptions, assumptions...

[Digital_Trucker]

Not wanting to endure any more if Jimbos childhood photographs, I'll let you have the last blast of hot air, SH. I wish you much success as a future politician:up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Hey, feel free to disagre mate - thats the joy of debate. On this one, we could both be wrong, who knows - noone does. nothin wrong with being civil though :D

You win! Forever.:up: :rock:

[Stealth Hunter]

Hey, feel free to disagre mate - thats the joy of debate. On this one, we could both be wrong, who knows - noone does. nothin wrong with being civil though :D

You win! Forever.:up: :rock:

http://egg.org.au/gallery/d/935-1/You+Win+an+Internet.jpg

[UnderseaLcpl]

Honestly, I don't see how any of you can be so passionate about this topic. Some of you routinely post gotchas threads on GW as if that wraps up the debate. None of you is engaged in scientific research on this topic; last time I checked, noon of you are scientists, so all you know is what you read on the web or hear in the news :) There are so many nuts on both side pro and con of GW (Al Gore,the nutty greenies, the nutty right wing talking heads), it sounds like some of you just make up your mind what you want to believe and that's it. Who the heck knows if GW is manmade, or not, and to how much of a degree. Even the scirentists are split. Isn't there anything else you can talk about?

Oh, c'mon Neal.;) That's what the internet is all about. Freedom of information. Free exchange of ideas (or free trashing of the same)

If anything, you should be proud that so many different people from so many different places can bash heads in the GT forum and others and yet still be united in their love for submarines, naval history, and maritime affairs.

Nothing is ever going to stop people from discussing and arguing over things like politics and religion, and Subsim does a damn fine job of keeping the real flamers and baiters out. Everyone is passionate about someting, and even at its' worst, Subsim outshines thousands of other sites in terms of civility and courtesy.

It doesn't matter if anyone's opinion matters. Subsim is an excellent online community and that's what everyone enjoys. We all got along famously at the last subsim meet, right?

[Stealth Hunter]

I think the next one should feature a cage fight along with a battle to the death...:smug:

[baggygreen]

Hey, feel free to disagre mate - thats the joy of debate. On this one, we could both be wrong, who knows - noone does. nothin wrong with being civil though :D
You win! Forever.:up: :rock:
snip photoAw shucks, thanks guys:88)

[Enigma]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/01/22/study.forests.dying/index.html

The study, to be released Friday in the journal Science, is the first large-scale analysis of environmental changes as contributing factors in the mortality of coniferous forests.
The data for this research was gathered by generations of scientists over a 50-year period at multiple sites in Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and southwestern British Columbia. Seventy-six forest plots, all more than 200 years old, were monitored by scientists doing some of the most rudimentary research -- counting trees.

[August]

The good news is there will be plenty of seasoned timber for my wood stove. Muahahahahaha!

[baggygreen]

One must still be careful to attribute this directly to GW.

For example - was there any increase in diseases amongst the trees? Was there a particularly large number of trees planted at the same time, all of which have reached the end of their lives at the same time? can the losses be attributed to runoff from nearby property containing pesticides etc? Has it been a dry period compared to the previous couple of hundred years or so?

One must rule out all other possibilities before calling foul :)

[Zachstar]

The good news is there will be plenty of seasoned timber for my wood stove. Muahahahahaha!

Win!

BTW just so everyone knows. Trees make VERY LITTLE of the oxygen we inhale. By far most of it comes from algae in the ocean.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Are the trees dying faster than they are being replaced?
What's the average age of the trees when they die, and is that number changing?
Has other vegetation in the area been affected? Is it affecting the trees?
If a tree falls in the forest and someone arbitrarily blames it on global warming, does it do us any good?:D ;)

[August]

The good news is there will be plenty of seasoned timber for my wood stove. Muahahahahaha!
Win!

BTW just so everyone knows. Trees make VERY LITTLE of the oxygen we inhale. By far most of it comes from algae in the ocean.
Sure, but trees are still useful for other purposes like harboring various forms of life and providing construction material etc. If people don't take care of them then it's a limited resource just like oil or whatever else.

Sort of. Trees are a lot more renewable than oil. 20-30 years to grow another one as opposed to what 1-2 million years to make oil?

[SteamWake]

Rather than start a new thread I add to this one...

"Alot of the 'green' stuff is turning into a giant scam"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

[August]

Sure, but that's assuming a minimum level of care. If you kill a variety of tree it won't just re-grow out of nothing. And even if there's still roots, 20/30 years is still quite long when your business on it.

Actually I have been a tree farmer for 5 years now. My Forrester assures me that the trees on my property in Maine will be worth between 10-30K per acre in 5-15 years depending on how much pruning and thinning I do.

But nothing in that article though implies that there is a complete die off and believe me there are a LOT of woods out that way.

[Onkel Neal]

Because I know someone will post this, may as well go into the Global Warming thread.

Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore Over Global Warming Campaign (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/29/weather-channel-founder-blasts-gore-global-warming-campaign/)

I neither agree not disagree with the content, merely pointing it out. :hmph:

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, really, imagine when he was a kid on the playground.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is an interesting article. It was even more interesting to see Al Gore...Goreacle sweat it out yesterday while being questioned by the Senators.:har: The Goreacle has spoken:O: