Global Warming: Enemies of the State?

[RedToo]

The National Academy of Sciences, in its official journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has just published a list of scientists whom it claims should not be believed on the subject of global warming.

Makes interesting reading.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/w...the-state-number-38/ (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/writing-for-pjm-helped-make-me-enemy-of-the-state-number-38/)

RedToo.

[RedToo]

The National Academy of Sciences, in its official journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has just published a list of scientists whom it claims should not be believed on the subject of global warming.

Makes interesting reading.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/w...the-state-number-38/ (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/writing-for-pjm-helped-make-me-enemy-of-the-state-number-38/)

RedToo.

[AndyJWest]

'Interesting reading'? Not particularly. A tired old rehash of the usual conspiracy theory. I suggest people read the actual Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article, and see how it compares with this bit of self-serving hogwash.

You can find the article here: http://www.pnas.org/content/10.../12107.full.pdf+html (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html)

Incidentally, I can find no 'list of scientists' in the article. Possibly because there isn't one. Still, there is nothing like claims of persecution to satisfy a conspiracy theory.

[Pirschjaeger]

Interesting article but in my opinion the author makes three big flaws.

First: He offers no evidence to back up his claims of 'data correction'.

Second: He refers too much to the Holocaust and those involved.

Third: He seemingly tries to imply that due CVs makes him an those he mentioned some sort of authority on the issue.

I'm not saying he is either right or wrong but just that he's being very unscientific or in other words..... political. In this he loses credibility.

Although interesting I don't think it is quite the picture the author is trying to paint.

Edit: Here's the list Andy (http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/%7Eprall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html)

What I find interesting is that the public wants answers and so need to know how many are for and against. It seems to me that's the purpose of the list in the first place.

[AndyJWest]

So there is a list, but it isn't published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and there is no statement in the Proceedings to the effect that these scientist 'should not be believed'.

And it is the climate change sceptics who make accusations of distortion of data... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[p-11.cAce]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h4DmQs6KDaM/SM4cxapV-oI/AAAAAAAAACg/33qE2dDTcaA/s400/global-cooling.jpg

Ahhh the good old days. When I was a kid in the 70's everyone was freaking because the scientists said we'd all be frozen to death and under glaciers by now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
So there is a list, but it isn't published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and there is no statement in the Proceedings to the effect that these scientist 'should not be believed'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
And it is the climate change sceptics who make accusations of distortion of data... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice how the writing style of the author is typical of the Beck types. The problem is that there are droves of sheople who're more than willing to buy it and lend credibility to it within their ranks.

Perhaps we'll see Camellia sinensis Parties next. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

@ p-11.cAce,

thankfully science has evolved since the 70's. The research and data collection techniques of those times are Kindergarten compared to today.

Currently we're junior high school. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[GoToAway]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Ahhh the good old days. When I was a kid in the 70's everyone was freaking because the scientists said we'd all be frozen to death and under glaciers by now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...and that may well be the case.

Climate change is a little more complex than a lot of people realize. Everything is interconnected. Melting polar ice decreases the salinity of the ocean, thus slowing conveyor currents. Anyone want to venture a guess as to what will happen to places like the east coast of the US or coastal Europe in the winter if that occurs?

Here's a hint: It's not going to be warmer.

The fact that the uninformed call it "global warming" has little bearing on the matter (it's also why scientists have been saying "climate change" for a couple of decades.)

[stalkervision]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Ahhh the good old days. When I was a kid in the 70's everyone was freaking because the scientists said we'd all be frozen to death and under glaciers by now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...and that may well be the case.

Climate change is a little more complex than a lot of people realize. Everything is interconnected. Melting polar ice decreases the salinity of the ocean, thus slowing conveyor currents. Anyone want to venture a guess as to what will happen to places like the east coast of the US or coastal Europe in the winter if that occurs?

Here's a hint: It's not going to be warmer.

The fact that the uninformed call it "global warming" has little bearing on the matter (it's also why scientists have been saying "climate change" for a couple of decades.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good points GTA. The term "global warming" is really a misnomer. It should really called global climate change.

Of course all the dumb heads have latched on to this misnomer with a vengeance.

[Monty_Thrud]

But, but...what about Flatulent Cows...

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//cow-fire.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//small-emo-cow_1.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//MikeLesterCattleLyticConverter.png

[Pirschjaeger]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

[GoToAway]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//cow-fire.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I took a physical geo class a few semesters back that focused on climate change (the professor had done quite a bit of research into the field.)

The statistics re: livestock are pretty shocking. The meat/dairy industries produce the vast majority of atmospheric methane, and methane has an atmospheric halflife only exceeded by things like CFCs.

It actually made me cut my red meat consumption by about 90%. Even ignoring the methane, the runoff from those industries is also pretty catastrophic.

So yes, cow farts are killing the planet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[stalkervision]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//cow-fire.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I took a physical geo class a few semesters back that focused on climate change (the professor had done quite a bit of research into the field.)

The statistics re: livestock are pretty shocking. The meat/dairy industries produce the vast majority of atmospheric methane, and methane has an atmospheric halflife only exceeded by things like CFCs.

It actually made me cut my red meat consumption by about 90%. Even ignoring the methane, the runoff from those industries is also pretty catastrophic.

So yes, cow farts are killing the planet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and so is your post because it has a much higher amount of methane then any 300 cows can produce. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[GoToAway]

I'm always cognizant of the effects of my farts on the planet.

(Sadly, I kill the planet a little more every day. Whoops, just did it again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif)

[p-11.cAce]

Yes- the climate changes. Thank God we did not figure out how to stop that back when Detroit was under a mile of ice.

[mortoma]

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j144/lzfanboi/iceage11.jpg

Here's a very scientific graph showing that much of the last 10,000 years has actually been warmer than it is today. Something the global warming panic mongers don't want you to know about.

And I think it's amazing that so many pro-warming people can point to us global warming skeptics and claim we're so "political" when they are every bit as political about the subject as anyone else, if not more so. And also they cleverly claim us antis are not "scientific", when their counter claims are not scientifically compelling at all. They just blow out a lot of hot air and resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling. That's not very scientific of them, now is it?

[AndyJWest]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think it's amazing that so many pro-warming people can point to us global warming skeptics and claim we're so "political" when they are every bit as political about the subject as anyone else, if not more so. And also they cleverly claim us antis are not "scientific", when their counter claims are not scientifically compelling at all. They just blow out a lot of hot air and resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling. That's not very scientific of them, now is it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can anyone spot the failure of logic contained in this paragraph?

Where did you're 'very scientific' graph come from, Mortoma? And why emphasise the temperature changes over the last 10,000 years when the most striking feature of the graph is the earlier variability and sudden warming?

[GoToAway]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Yes- the climate changes. Thank God we did not figure out how to stop that back when Detroit was under a mile of ice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's a bit disingenuous, p.11. I generally think you're a pretty upstanding and reasonable guy.

Surely you have to admit that there is a massive difference between a natural ice age and a man-made climate shift? Furthermore, what if Detroit were threatened by glacial encroachment now and it was within humanity's power to prevent it? Would you not support that course of action?

The thing with anthropogenic climate change is that the actions taken to prevent it cause no damage, but those that oppose it certainly will. Even if you're a complete nutter like mortoma, surely you can admit that it's within everyone's best interest to reduce levels of pollution.

Even if you want to chalk it up to a massive conspiracy... what's the harm in protecting the planet that we all need to live on? Sure, it costs money, but in the long run being cleaner benefits us all.

[p-11.cAce]

Honestly I'm just stoking the fires a bit - so to speak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

Every time I read these global warming/climate change discussions it amazes me that people focus on whether it is getting warmer or cooler and therefore missing the importance of the issue completely.

Our global climate changes and has been changing fairly consistently until recently. What seems to be inconsistent is the rate of change. That is the real issue. Life on Earth adapts to the natural cooling and warming periods but the current rate of change makes adapting very difficult and even impossible for some species.

We do not know definitively if our habits and behavior contributes or not and so we are left with probability.

When you stop and to think of our habits and behaviors, from industry to to the individual, then I think we can all agreed that it is probable that we are affecting the rate of change. Is that not good enough?

I think the reason so many individuals deny the issue is actually an issue is because once you agree that we are probably causing negative effects, then you will have to carry some of the responsibility and accountability,.... something many folks avoid doing.

This issue shouldn't be political but rather rational and logical. Life has adapted to Earth's moods and behaviors. The human effects are very relatively new and only a handful of species, such as rock pigeons, have adapted to us.

Information on the Sixth Extinction (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html)

The sad part is that although we are the only species known to cause such havoc on ecologies, we also have the potential to undo a lot of what we are doing or have done. We would have what it takes to make many human wrongs right,...

....if we weren't in denial.

[Pirschjaeger]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j144/lzfanboi/iceage11.jpg

Here's a very scientific graph showing that much of the last 10,000 years has actually been warmer than it is today. Something the global warming panic mongers don't want you to know about.

And I think it's amazing that so many pro-warming people can point to us global warming skeptics and claim we're so "political" when they are every bit as political about the subject as anyone else, if not more so. And also they cleverly claim us antis are not "scientific", when their counter claims are not scientifically compelling at all. They just blow out a lot of hot air and resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling. That's not very scientific of them, now is it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Mort,

again, it's not about warming. That's a spin meant to distract from the real issue: rate of change. The graph loses credibility so easily and is not even related to the issue.

What one needs to do is simply look around. I'm 43 so I haven't been on the Earth for very long. I grew up in N.S. Canada and as for as long as I can remember the weather had remained fairly consistent. But I spoke to my mother the other day (she's still in N.S.) and she told me the temp was 43 Celsius. That's unheard of in that region.

Last winter was my fourth in Franken, Germany. It was completely different from the 3 before. Two winters ago we didn't get enough snow to talk about. Last winter we had so much snow salt had become a precious commodity. Germany had to import salt and it was carefully rationed mostly to cities. If one were to create graphs showing seasonal temps and precipitation we'd then be looking at dramatic spikes.

I would also like to see a graph that represents annual new temp and precipitation records for the last 1,000 years. I have a feeling you'd see a spike in current times.

These are the types of graphs we need to look at. You can find graphs that show increases and decreases in temps but it is important to keep in mind the geo and demographics of each graph. A global graph means nothing since it doesn't indicate local changes. Local changes are what really matters. At the times when the Egyptian and Incan civilizations collapsed due to drought, Europe was in a cold spell with high rates of precipitation. Since humans and politicians are the only truly global species out of millions species, global averages mean nothing. Most species are local and this is why we need to look at graphs representing local changes.