Climate problem ‘enormous'

[the_professor]

Climate change models are pure horseshit. 30 different models analyzed cannot even mirror the temperature increases we have seen during the past century, where we have hard data that can be cross-checked. So when Al Gore stops talking about how he invented the Internet and moves on to telling us all that the sea is going to rise 20 feet, take some pause.

But give him credit, he did get his Nobel prize nomination this week. (who says Big Oil are the only selfish climate theory proponents?) From a Wall Street Journal editorial:


"There are substantial differences in climate models--some 30 of them looked at by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--but the Climate Science study concludes that "computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase." The National Center for Atmospheric Research's prediction of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warming is more accurate. In short, the world is not warming as much as environmentalists think it is."

"Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans concluded that 'global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice.'"

Finally come the polar bears--a species thought by global warming proponents to be seriously at risk from the increasing temperature. According to the World Wildlife Fund, among the distinct polar bear populations, two are growing--and in areas where temperatures have risen; ten are stable; and two are decreasing. But those two are in areas such as Baffin Bay where air temperatures have actually fallen.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110008416[/b]

[corporate joe]

Global warming caused by humans is as widely accepted amongst all scientists over the world as is the roundness of the earth. What varies amongst these scientists is not if it is bad, but rather how bad.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

Climate change does not mean everywhere in the world gets warmer. It means the AVERAGE temperature gets warmer. One who still does understand that should not even be debating (or posting opinions for that matter), he should be informing himself.

Those who do not act to reduce global warming will be spoken of in tomorrow’s history books as irresponsible (to say the least). Future generations will read of these people who still had the choice to act, but rather chose to deny, and they will wonder who these idiots were and why they risked (or ruined depending on how optimistic you are)everyone's future in the process.
Don’t waste your breath Glen, you will notice that it is always the same small group of individuals on these forums who spew the same nonsense, and who have the same simplistic views on many subjects. These people are not interested in reason. The entire scientific community has reached a consensus, there are thousands of pages of studies all over the world yet these people have “arguments” to deny what is in front of them and is undeniable. Would you waste your time reasoning with someone who is telling you the earth is smaller than the moon? No, you wouldn’t because it is such an obvious fact acknowledged by all that no one in their right mind still denies it.
No matter what you say, no matter what you do these people will not change their “mind”.

[Dust Devil]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html

[corporate joe]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html

Thanks for a 5 year old article quoting studies from 1997! Please, when you google something, don't wait till you get to page 10 of the search and skip all other articles from actual sources contradicting the point you are trying to make. News flash, in the last 10 years there is a lot more data and a lot more proof.

some of the sources from the above link:

(3) Statement Concerning Global Warming-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, June 10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(4) Excerpts from,"Our Global Future: Climate Change", Remarks by Under Secretary for Global affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September 1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate Change Campaign

(5) Testimony of John R. Christy to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.

(6) The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998.

(7) Variation in cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).

Start your learning process here, it shouldn't be too confusing.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

[Hedley]

So, is the spin that those eleven people really didn't die?

Or, is someone twice as dead if they are killed by global warming ( wtf ?!) instead of excessively cold temps? So, these eleven deaths don't really matter, is that it?

This reminds me, is anyone else here a Monty Python fan?

[corporate joe]

So, is the spin that those eleven people really didn't die?

Or, is someone twice as dead if they are killed by global warming ( wtf ?!) instead of excessively cold temps? So, these eleven deaths don't really matter, is that it?

This reminds me, is anyone else here a Monty Python fan?

No, the spin is that people dying from cold, in a global warming debate, is irrelevant.

[Icebound]

I don't dispute that the earth is warming. The severity, human influence, and length of the trend, are nothing more than educated guesses from today's science.

Although I may not agree with the prof and his supporters in many of their statements...

...his statement, quoted above, is THE essence.

The "nay" sayers have damaged their credibility by disputing the facts.

The "yea" sayers have damaged their credibility by distorting the facts (together with "the sky is falling").

Which is why the arguments have escalated to shouting instead of logic.

I find it somewhat incredible that "polls" suggest that the environment is the "number one" issue for Canadians. I don't know of a whole lot of Canadians who are about to give up their 2-car personal transportation, or their annual flight to Florida...

And if the car gets more efficient, we will just get a bigger one... if our electrical toys get too efficient, we will just get more of them, ...if the house is heated with less gas, we will build a bigger one.

We may SAY that we are concerned, but let's see how much we are willing to actually pay to science, to industry, and/or to the government for the fixes.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with hedging out bets and exploring alternate energy sources, and trying to reduce human influence on the environment wherever we can. But, even if I may want to believe otherwise, my gut tells me that there is NO WAY that the average Canadian will change his lifestyle if it costs him money...(Things like BLUE BOXES (and the like) work, because the incremental cost to the individual is either minimal, or hidden very well.)

If the cost of going green is passed all the way to the individual, it will only exacerbate the division between rich and poor, because the rich will be able to continue to keep their polluting lifestyle and the rest of us won't.

So... much as I may agree with the fact that the planet is warming, and that humans are adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.... it is going to have to be innovative science and technology that comes up with ways to make me (and you) want to change our lifestyles.... or more correctly: to improve our lifestyles and the planets health, at little incremental cost to us.

It is ludicrous that government (and business) should believe that... having led us into our current infrastructure.... that we will make a quick 180 because it looks like they have chosen a bad route.

prof isn't sure that its the wrong path,
hedley doesn't care if it is the wrong path,
those that are absolutely positive (and want to turn immediately).... don't yet know where else to go...
...as for me (and the average Canadian), we might like to, but we are not sure that we CAN turn so readily.

In the next few years, there is going to be a lot of profit in useless "green" technology.... mixed in, hopefully, with some innovative ideas that really WILL make a difference.

The problem will be determining which is which. Good luck...

...

[Hedley]

the spin is that people dying from cold, in a global warming debate, is irrelevant.

So, only deaths from global warming matter?

hedley doesn't care if it is the wrong path

So many mistakes have been made over the decades, and I have been lied to so many times (like when that chick last week told me she didn't have any diseases) that it is difficult to not become deeply skeptical about everything that I hear.

Besides that, I'd really like some global warming. I live 400 feet above sea level, where the season consists of 8 months of bitterly cold winter, and 4 months of poor snowmobiling.

I suppose I should feel sorry for everyone in Malibu with beach houses right on the ocean, but it's a bit of a struggle.

[Reality]

I bet you we are all dead from acts of war, terrorism and disease before anyone wins the bet on global warming. Global warming is based on "predictions", I have yet to see any "scientific predictions" that have panned out on there proposed timelines. The sad thing is, no matter what, very little will be done about it because every politician that has the power to cut back on pollution and green house gases is to busy lining his/her pockets with benjamins for there lifestyle and their family......

[the_professor]

I don't dispute that the earth is warming. The severity, human influence, and length of the trend, are nothing more than educated guesses from today's science.

Although I may not agree with the prof and his supporters in many of their statements...

...his statement, quoted above, is THE essence.

And that is all that I ask that people consider when trying to form an opinion on this issue. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to form an objective opinion, given all the BS that is flung from both sides, as you noted.

But what should never happen is having a population form an opinion based on the efforts of fringe scientists in combination with the 24hr news cycle of today's world...

That's when you end up with pure jibberish, like Dion demanding the endorsement of Kyoto, and people predicting the arctic's temps are going to rise by 15 degrees in 15 years. 15 degrees in 15 years??!! What are we, idiots?

Let's not be obviously stupid about this whole thing.

[corporate joe]

Scientific method: " Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning. "

What does that mean? It means that there is undeniable empiric evidence of humanity's effect on the environment. It can be reproduced by different people (1 + 1 always equal 2 no matter who adds it up) and when the same methodology is applied one can arrive at the same conclusion over and over again. The earth is warming, we are causing it, we need to do whatever it takes to stop it. All the rest is not important. Maybe the sky is falling, maybe it isn't, maybe the temperatures will rise 5C or 20C, that is not the point and does not in any way remove any credibility or the severity of the situation.

Even though all scientists do not agree on everything, they all agree that it needs to be stopped, and the cost to stop it is much smaller than the cost not to stop it. People don't realize that the cost they have to pay now to stop global warming is nothing in comparison to the cost of letting it continue, and that every scientist agrees on.

Blaming the media, blaming political parties, blaming the new masses bandwagon or blaming anything else does not remove this truth. It needs to stop. We need to do efforts individually and politicians need to put in these policies to allow us to make these efforts. We therefore need to vote for the political party that will allow us to do more about it, and as soon as possible. All the rest is meaningless, tax refunds, business policies everything is meaningless because so many studies show that global warming can and will (if left unattended) destroy the world's economy.

The following large business agencies (agencies who only years ago were still skeptical) have made large scale studies showing that not acting to reduce global warming will cost much more than doing whatever it takes to stop it. (You will also notice that to these agencies this is not a debate anymore, global warming is real and it needs to be stopped). You will also notice that some of these agencies have large investments in funds of companies that cause green house gases, so it has nothing to do with being biased, on the contrary.


Scotsman business :
http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1821742005

Stanford Graduate University of business
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headli ... berg.shtml

Group of Insurance companies piling together all their studies all coming to the same conclusion:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... rming.html

Reuters report:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory ... /story.htm

Sierra club:
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming ... action.asp

The Forbes group :
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory ... /story.htm

The Stern report:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 776868.htm

The World banks economists:
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/53999.html

Brighton and Hove business analysts:
http://www.brightonbusiness.co.uk/htm/n ... 562463.htm

Again there are many many more. The results are the same. First there was evidence from the scientific specialists in our society, now there is evidence from the elite businessmen of our economy.

A lot of pilots think that they can't worry about global warming because they are a big contributor, and acting to reduce global warming would take their jobs away. It is not guaranteed that acting to reduce global warming will cost them their jobs (neither does it mean we all need to stop driving our cars and stop heating in winter), but it is guaranteed that not acting to reduce it will hurt the economy and a lot of us will lose our current jobs (and not just in aviation). Read the reports if you are still skeptical.

Some also think that is just the new trend and the media likes to sensationalize everything. It is true that the media likes to sell newspapers and have good ratings however this is not a new trend. This ex-debate has been going for 10 years, and now the evidence is so large, so undeniable and things are at such a critical point that everyone (almost everyone, there are still some blind fools) is coming together and realizing that this is the new priority. New priority not because it just appeared and became popular, but new because we left it unattended for so long and we let it worsen to the point it is at now.

[Hedley]

As a taxpayer, I want the best bang for my tax dollar. This is pretty simple to understand. I don't want to my tax dollars to be wasted.

So, let's look at the last 50 years. How many people have died from heart disease and cancer in the last 50 years? Millions? Billions?

How many people have died from Global Warming? I suspect fewer than die from the cold (see previous news article).

So, even though people may have their religions (eg global warming) frankly my tax dollar is better spent on research, prevention and treatment of heart disease and cancer.

Is this hard to understand?

[Glen Quagmire]

So, let's look at the last 50 years. How many people have died from heart disease and cancer in the last 50 years? Millions? Billions?

How many people have died from Global Warming? I suspect fewer than die from the cold (see previous news article).

Nonsensical reasoning from a very simple mind. Were you being facetious or was that supposed to be serious insight? Rhetorical question by the way.

[2R]

Lets change the subject.

For Politicians whose party is caught in the midst of massive corrution .For a party that cut and slashed medical training that created a Doctor and Nursing shortage.For a party that cut and slashed student support that has left massive debts for those graduating.For a party that only pad lip service to daycare for thirteen years.I can see why they would prefer to talk about the weather.

For Politicians representing a party with exreme moral views that only two other countries in the world embrace ,who have failed to represent and protect the jobs of those workers who pay their dues to support a party that cannot do anything for them other than offer some cheerleading instead of leadership and action. I can see why they would rather talk about the weather.

For Politicians who represent a Province that finally sees the benefit of confederation and is rapidly losing suport.I can see why they would rather talk about the weather.

For politicians who are actively trying to improve the country in a realistic and timely manner .Who are trying to do their best in the real world .I can see why they do not want to talk about the weather.

[Hedley]

Nonsensical

So as a taxpayer, I am not allowed to have (or voice) an opinion on how my tax dollars are to be spent?

What incredible, left-wing arrogant nonsense.

[Glen Quagmire]

No that's not what I meant, read it again and try to figure it out. It shouldn't be that difficult but then again I am dealing with someone who has, or seems to have a diminished ability to reason.

[the_professor]

So, let's look at the last 50 years. How many people have died from heart disease and cancer in the last 50 years? Millions? Billions?

How many people have died from Global Warming? I suspect fewer than die from the cold (see previous news article).

Nonsensical reasoning from a very simple mind. Were you being facetious or was that supposed to be serious insight? Rhetorical question by the way.

I agree with Hedley. Whatever measley cobbled-together effort we're able to make towards reducing emissions, it will make no difference whatsoever in terms of the climate for anyone alive on the planet today, be they 50yrs old or newborns. It will make no difference.

Spending a few billion dollars on cancer research to employ an army of researchers would almost definitely make a difference.

I'll take a measurable difference in disease prevention or treatment over scientific theories whose own models can't even match the known behaviour of the atmosphere over the last 100 years any day.

[the_professor]

The earth is warming,

Not up for debate. It has been warming for the last 125,000 years.

, we are causing it

That is still debatable.

A lot of pilots think that they can't worry about global warming because they are a big contributor,

I have no idea if this figure is based in reality, and do not know its source, but someone told me that aviation accounts for 30% of global CO2 emissions right now. Seems high to me, but then again, there are an awful lots of planes out there...


Anyway, thanks for providing 100 links about climate change.
If I was to provide 100 links to scientists who argued that the earth was flat, would that give any more credibility to that theory?

The truthiness of a theory does not, at an empirical level, go up or down based on how many people may support said theory. A theory can be invalid regardless of whether 100 or 1,000,000 million people agree with it.

Consensus does not equal truth. And only a retarded or autistic person would even suggest something as ridiculous as the arctic warming by 15 degrees in the next 15 years. And people think I'm the one who's in denial? Give me a fucking break.

[Hedley]

I find the environmental fanatics as least as scary as George Bush. Both of them are convinced, in a very religious manner, that they are "doing good" and damn any consequences or cost - they are on a mission and either you agree with them, or you are the enemy.

Very, very scary.

[the_professor]

I find the environmental fanatics as least as scary as George Bush. Both of them are convinced, in a very religious manner, that they are "doing good" and damn any consequences or cost - they are on a mission and either you agree with them, or you are the enemy.

Very, very scary.

Excellent analogy.

It's like all of the sudden the number of Greenpeace-type radicals have gone from 0.005% of the population to 5%, and growing by the day.

All stumbling with blind faith, unquestioning, towards the altar of the great gas gods...

[corporate joe]

Anyway, thanks for providing 100 links about climate change.
If I was to provide 100 links to scientists who argued that the earth was flat, would that give any more credibility to that theory?

Apparently you can't and don't read. The links provided were articles about B-U-S-I-N-E-S-S-E-S doing studies on the cost of global warming. Furthermore the fact of the matter remains that you can NOT provide 100 links from major universities, organizations (scientific or other) to argue that the earth was flat because it isn't. As a matter of fact you can't even provide a RECENT article from any reputable source (not some random guys website) claiming that global warming is still a debate. I can provide hundreds of links about global warming and its costs from all the major organizations because it is not a debate anymore in all circles of intelligence, it's a fact. You gotta love people posting on boards who know better than ALL the friggin scientists in the world. The world is wrong and they are right. They know better than all the studies and evidence. You must be a great pilot! Do you deny the point of no return when you are making your fuel calculations. Do you deny density and gravity?I am really happy you're not flying next me and trust me, you never will.
Picture this for a second, You are sitting in a bar and you start talking to some guy who makes a claim about something. Then you start talking about it and debating it and after a while you pull out your encyclopedia (you happened to be carrying it) and you show him why he is wrong. He then denies the encyclopedia’s information without giving you any valid reason why nor giving you any source. So you turn on the TV and show him he is wrong. Doesn’t matter, he still thinks he is right. So you pull out your TIME magazine, or you science mag weekly, or all the other thousands of articles you have lying around (how convenient) and then you show him thousands of pages of studies, you show him newspapers, you google it for him and link him to all the information he could possibly want. He shakes his head and still says you are wrong.
What do you do then? You call him a doorknob, you tell him to read more and think less, and you ignore him like all the other door knobs because it is clear that this person is not only irrational, she is plain old stupid.

The truthiness of a theory does not, at an empirical level, go up or down based on how many people may support said theory. A theory can be invalid regardless of whether 100 or 1,000,000 million people agree with it.

No, but when there is enough data observed by enough people it does. In this case there is SO much data that everyone who knows about said data acknowledges it.

truthiness

P.S.: Truthiness is the perfect word to describe your arguments (it doesn’t mean anything).

[corporate joe]

This was prof's reasoning to me in a PM. I understand the point he's trying to make, I think:

That wasn't my point. My point was that *if* the majority of scientists suddenly became convinced that the earth was flat, that posting a bunch of links to their "research" wouldn't make it true. In the same way that people (generally) refering to study after study doesn't prove anything about climate change if, as I believe, a lot of the studies are flawed.

Notice the term "research", as if to say that not only does he know about the research, he knows it was not done well!?! Notice also he uses the term "believe". This is my point exactly. Some guy sitting at home thinking he knows better than everyone else in the world, no matter how much proof he is given and no matter how little proof he has against. He just wants to deny. No reason to deny, just decided he would deny to be special or different. Can you imagine if we had to go through this each time science discovered something?
"Gravity is not real. Everyone is saying it's real, and the empirical data is showing that's real but that does not make it real. I do not believe in gravity. If all the scientists got together and said the earth was flat would it make it true? No! Therefore, all the scientists getting together and saying global warming is caused by humans is not true because I believe it is that way. I do not have any reason or arguments to believe gravity is not real, but I have a feeling that all the world's research proving the existence of gravity is wrong and that I know better than all these people, therefore gravity is not real."
Seriously, that kind of an attitude in every day life is completely ridiculous, but in a cockpit it's dangerous.

I don't know what's worst, the radical lunatic who calls everyone who disagrees with him a lefty or the guy who actually has a brain and who can think, but just refuses to use it if it means contradicting his beliefs.

[the_professor]

Some guy sitting at home thinking he knows better than everyone else in the world, no matter how much proof he is given and no matter how little proof he has against. He just wants to deny. No reason to deny, just decided he would deny to be special or different.

No, I dispute the research based on very sound reasoning.

As in, scientists are making dire predictions about the supposed impact of CO2 in the atmosphere, and yet dozens of climate change models were discredited by the fact that they overstated the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere vs. the temperatures that were actually observed during the last 100 years.

So if the models can't even replicate the actual changes seen in the atmosphere in the last 100 years, then why are we drawing conclusions based on their results set, particularly when the inputs to the model aren't even actual numbers -- they're only estimates of CO2 values, which themselves are arrived at through a series of assumptions.

Now that's living in denial.

[corporate joe]

Some guy sitting at home thinking he knows better than everyone else in the world, no matter how much proof he is given and no matter how little proof he has against. He just wants to deny. No reason to deny, just decided he would deny to be special or different.

No, I dispute the research based on very sound reasoning.

As in, scientists are making dire predictions about the supposed impact of CO2 in the atmosphere, and yet dozens of climate change models were discredited by the fact that they overstated the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere vs. the temperatures that were actually observed during the last 100 years.

So if the models can't even replicate the actual changes seen in the atmosphere in the last 100 years, then why are we drawing conclusions based on their results set, particularly when the inputs to the model aren't even actual numbers -- they're only estimates of CO2 values, which themselves are arrived at through a series of assumptions.

Now that's living in denial.

This is my last attempt to reason with you so I will make it short and simple:

Models are irrelevant and so are the predictions when it comes to linking global warming with human activity. What matters is that the link between the rise in green house gases and the rise in temperature is a solid undeniable fact. Predictions are what they are predictions, but they are not the science behind global warming, they are just an add-on.
With a rise in emissions comes a rise in temperature and that's all we need to know to justify acting to reduce the emissions. Models or not, there are thousands of observations and all of them come to the same conclusion. The longer we wait, the harder it is to act.
Scientists are a very skeptical crowd by nature and if you can think of a “problem” in their methodology by sitting at home and then suddenly having a revelation, you can rest assured that the thousands of studies out there, some from people who devote all of their time and knowledge to come up with this, well that “problem” has already been considered. Are you seriously rebutting all of the earth’s brightest and telling them you know how to do their work better than them? How many times in history has their been such a wide consensus, especially with such a large amount of studying? (let me answer that: never). A lot of groups tried to deny global warming because of personal interest and spent a lot of money, time and effort to contradict these findings. These groups have all come to the same conclusion: global warming is real and the cost of waiting is greater than the cost of acting.
Now look at yourself and question your education and your true knowledge in science, question how much study you have done in this matter and ask yourself this: “Am I really qualified to contradict the entire scientific community based on my opinions?” Then ask yourself this :” What is the price of being wrong vs the price of acting? With all the evidence out there do I really want to risk it?”

[the_professor]

This is my last attempt to reason with you so I will make it short and simple:

You make many valid points. Time will tell.