Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (inland emporer): <<This Mote guy's quotes all point to humans having something to do with global warming, which is what Dabob2 said he said. Even after he quoted them verbatim you stick to the idea that Mote wasn't saying that?>> (DD): <Sorry, but not all of Mote's quotes point to humans having something to do with global warming. Some did, sure. The trouble is that we often get global warming alarmists putting words in climate scientists mouths, as this reporter did to Mote, and Dabob was unable to tell the difference.> Oh, please. Your lame attempts at "gotcha" aren't going to fly. The first thing you asked for was a quote from a climate scientist saying that humans were a contributor to climate change. I provided an article with several quotes, either saying so directly, or addressing related points. From that, you try to say I "can't tell the difference?" Desperate. Also, I asked if you could provide any sort of evidence that the paraphrase was inaccurate (and based on the other things Mote said, it would seem highly unlikely), and you couldn't. Yet, you still insist that words were put in his mouth. Desperate. <But if a human-caused global warming skeptic does the same thing, we're told it meaningless because it's not a climate scientist writing the article, and the article is not appearing in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. It's a clear double standard.> No it isn't. I wouldn't put the Mote article up as any sort of "proof" of climate change; I only provided it as a quote from a climate scientist, since that's what you asked for (and only because it was the FIRST thing google brought up - there were plenty of other quotes too). But jonvn and others are quite right to insist on peer reviewed work by actual scientists when looking for evidence of the actual warming, as opposed to a simple quote.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <All the things we've pumped into the atmosphere since the dawn of industralization and man is a "possible" factor?> Yes. The warming that has occurred over the last century, or in centuries past, does not correlate with "all the things we've pumped into the atmosphere". You can't possibly be saying that all the pollutants and chemicals that have been discharged into the atmosphere over time have no effect on the temperature. No one is saying that man is the sole cause. You can't be that recalcitrant to say that man has not played a part.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Here is a statement by a climate scientist which claims there is a consensus on the human effect on climate change. : <<<"Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. I am Dr. Tony Busalacchi, a professor at the University of Maryland and I serve as the chair of The National Academies’ Climate Research Committee. I will use my time this morning to summarize what most scientists agree to be true about change in the Earth’s climate. Understanding climate and whether it is changing, and why, is one of the most crucial questions facing humankind in the twenty-first century. This question is the subject of much scientific research and, of course, policy debate, since the economic and environmental implications could be large. The National Academies have produced a number of reports focused on understanding climate in recent years and my testimony draws heavily from two of these: a February 2003 report that gives input to the Administration’s draft US Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan (NRC 2003) and a 2001 report called “Climate Change Science†that was done at the request of the White House (NRC 2001). The latter report answered a series of specific questions designed to identify areas in climate change science where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties. If you haven’t read this report, it is an excellent summary (only 25 pages long) written in very accessible language. As is explained in “Climate Change Science,†there is wide scientific consensus that climate is indeed changing. Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Our confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was ten, or even five years ago, but uncertainty remains because there is a level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries that can be difficult to interpret with precision because we gather this evidence from sparse observations, numerical models, and proxy records such as ice cores and tree rings. Despite the uncertainties, however, there is widespread agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years. As the report further explains, human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning show that there will be secondary effects from these changes. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will depend on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.â€>>>>> More of the statement can be found here: <a href="http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Science.asp" target="_blank">http://www7.nationalacademies. org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Science.asp</a> Here is the biography on Dr. Busalacchi if interested: <a href="http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/bios/busalacchi.htm" target="_blank">http://www.climatescience.gov/ workshop2005/bios/busalacchi.htm</a> But if that was all there was, the argument would be tit-for-tat. But it is also the consensus of some of the most reputable and prestigious scientific groups in the world that the information revealed in the IPCC and UNFCC reports represent an accurate portrayal of the tenets of climate change. Note that the National Academy of Sciences is the crème de la crème of the scientific community. <a href="http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf" target="_blank">http://nationalacademies.org/o npi/06072005.pdf</a> Endorsed by: National Academy of Sciences, United States of America; Chinese Academy of Sciences, China; Royal Society, United Kingdom; Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia; Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil; Royal Society of Canada, Canada; Academié des Sciences, France; Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany; Indian National Science Academy, India; Accademia dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan, Japan. Here is another joint academy publication: <a href="http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619" target="_blank">http://www.royalsociety.org/di splaypagedoc.asp?id=13619</a>
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Wow, that came out ugly! I'll fix the spacing to make it more legible. Here is a statement by a climate scientist which claims there is a consensus on the human effect on climate change. : <<<"Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. I am Dr. Tony Busalacchi, a professor at the University of Maryland and I serve as the chair of The National Academies’ Climate Research Committee. I will use my time this morning to summarize what most scientists agree to be true about change in the Earth’s climate. Understanding climate and whether it is changing, and why, is one of the most crucial questions facing humankind in the twenty-first century. This question is the subject of much scientific research and, of course, policy debate, since the economic and environmental implications could be large. The National Academies have produced a number of reports focused on understanding climate in recent years and my testimony draws heavily from two of these: a February 2003 report that gives input to the Administration’s draft US Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan (NRC 2003) and a 2001 report called “Climate Change Science†that was done at the request of the White House (NRC 2001). The latter report answered a series of specific questions designed to identify areas in climate change science where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties. If you haven’t read this report, it is an excellent summary (only 25 pages long) written in very accessible language. As is explained in “Climate Change Science,†there is wide scientific consensus that climate is indeed changing. Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Our confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was ten, or even five years ago, but uncertainty remains because there is a level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries that can be difficult to interpret with precision because we gather this evidence from sparse observations, numerical models, and proxy records such as ice cores and tree rings. Despite the uncertainties, however, there is widespread agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years. As the report further explains, human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning show that there will be secondary effects from these changes. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will depend on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.â€>>>>> More of the statement can be found here: <a href="http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Science.asp" target="_blank">http://www7.nationalacademies. org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Science.asp</a> Here is the biography on Dr. Busalacchi if interested: <a href="http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/bios/busalacchi.htm" target="_blank">http://www.climatescience.gov/ workshop2005/bios/busalacchi.htm</a> But if that was all there was, the argument would be tit-for-tat. But it is also the consensus of some of the most reputable and prestigious scientific groups in the world that the information revealed in the IPCC and UNFCC reports represent an accurate portrayal of the tenets of climate change. Note that the National Academy of Sciences is the crème de la crème of the scientific community. <a href="http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf" target="_blank">http://nationalacademies.org/o npi/06072005.pdf</a> Endorsed by: National Academy of Sciences, United States of America; Chinese Academy of Sciences, China; Royal Society, United Kingdom; Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia; Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil; Royal Society of Canada, Canada; Academié des Sciences, France; Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany; Indian National Science Academy, India; Accademia dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan, Japan. Here is another joint academy publication: <a href="http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619" target="_blank">http://www.royalsociety.org/di splaypagedoc.asp?id=13619</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Your lame attempts at "gotcha" aren't going to fly.> Again you try to blame me for your mistakes. <I provided an article with several quotes, either saying so directly, or addressing related points.> Except that none of the quotes said so directly. <I asked if you could provide any sort of evidence that the paraphrase was inaccurate (and based on the other things Mote said, it would seem highly unlikely), and you couldn't.> The only evidence that could prove that would be a tape recording of the conference. Of course I don't have that. And if I were have to asked you for evidence that the paraphrase was accurate, you wouldn't have been able to provide it either. None of us really know what Mote said, and that was my point. But like usual, you missed it. Maybe you were too busy thinking up pejoritives to use to describe me or my posts. <But jonvn and others are quite right to insist on peer reviewed work by actual scientists when looking for evidence of the actual warming, as opposed to a simple quote.> And yet rarely provide them. Jon never seems to want to discuss the details about what the concensus among climate scientists is. I think it's because the concensus isn't alarming enough.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You can't possibly be saying that all the pollutants and chemicals that have been discharged into the atmosphere over time have no effect on the temperature.> I'm sure that pollutants and chemicals being discharged into the atmosphere have some effect on the temperature. But what that effect has been or will be is an open question, and not one worth wrecking our economy or our standard of living for. I don't think mankind should go back to the stone age just because the average global temperature may rise 0.5 degrees in the next century.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^ So you think higher fuel economy standards for automobiles would send us back to the stone age? Switching from incandescent to fluorescent lighting will wreck the economy when it saves consumers money that they can spend on other items? Utilizing renewable energy resources instead of fossil fuels will reduce our standard of living? Are there any specific examples where increasing energy efficiency has resulted in an economic downturn? It seems to me that the Japanese automakers are gaining market share everyday on their U.S. counterparts -- I guess those U.S. automakers must be making their vehicles too environmentally friendly and fuel efficient. After all, those sorts of things destroy business and the ecomony, right? ;-)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So you think higher fuel economy standards for automobiles would send us back to the stone age? Switching from incandescent to fluorescent lighting will wreck the economy when it saves consumers money that they can spend on other items? Utilizing renewable energy resources instead of fossil fuels will reduce our standard of living?> No, but I also don't think those will do much of anything to prevent greenhouse gasses from accumulating in our atmosphere.
Originally Posted By jonvn What it comes down to, again, is that no credible science organization says anything different other than we are undergoing global warming, and that it is chiefly if not wholly human in origin. That's all. The rest of this is nonsense. The only things being quibbled about now is how bad and how much can be done to stop it. Basically, no one who has published anything of any credible value recently says anything other than this. Now what we have here on this board is an individual who posts opinion pieces from various lay journals or individuals who are not making statements of peer reviewed information. They are basically spouting off. SOme of them even are actual climatologists and such. That has never been denied. The consensus of opinion, which in itself implies non-unanimity, is very plain. And the attempts to obfuscate this are simply exposed as the childish word games that they are, and have been on other topics. I would suggest that all that needs to be done when faced with the endless nonsense that is presented here by a couple of posters is to simply go back to the basic truth of what I stated above. When you argue with them on their terms, they slide you down to their level. Simple repetition of the facts are all that is necessary. And the facts are that a vast consensus of opinion in the scientific community feels a certain way. And that is as has been stated by myself and others here. That's it. And it is to the point now where even the Bush Administration and companies like Exxon are now taking notice and trying to figure out what to do about it. I guess that means everyone is wrong about it but three posters on this board, and the whacked out organizations they enjoy quoting. I don't think so.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Jon never seems to want to discuss the details" Jon has already discussed the details several times. There is no point in repeating them if you didn't understand them the first few times.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What it comes down to, again, is that no credible science organization says anything different other than we are undergoing global warming, and that it is chiefly if not wholly human in origin.> Actually, no credible science organization is saying that.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693</a> >>When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive. Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age. During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001. Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming." Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well. Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion. While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect. The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster. The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic. Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000. Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September. As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth. <<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I've stated this recently but it seems to bear repeating. What with the advances in technology and industry in the last 200 years, and all that humans all over the world have pumped into the atmosphere and oceans as a result, it is sheer folly, bordering on idiocy, to deny that this behavior has not had a negative impact on the climate. That it takes study after study to confirm this is maddening.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Your lame attempts at "gotcha" aren't going to fly.>> <Again you try to blame me for your mistakes.> My only mistake was saying "quote" when one of them passages (but not all) was a paraphrase. And from this somehow you think you're right. Amazing, but instructive. <<I provided an article with several quotes, either saying so directly, or addressing related points.>> <Except that none of the quotes said so directly.> Tiggertoo's posts certainly did, much better than mine. And this is the larger point. Perhaps I should have not gone with the first thing I googled. But Tiggertoo's posts clearly show both what the consensus is, and that there are climatologists saying flatly what it is. <<I asked if you could provide any sort of evidence that the paraphrase was inaccurate (and based on the other things Mote said, it would seem highly unlikely), and you couldn't.>> <The only evidence that could prove that would be a tape recording of the conference. Of course I don't have that. And if I were have to asked you for evidence that the paraphrase was accurate, you wouldn't have been able to provide it either. None of us really know what Mote said, and that was my point.> We do know that his actual quotes back up the paraphrase as reported, not your fantasy that somehow he might have said something 180 degrees different. But as usual, common sense goes out the window with you. <<But jonvn and others are quite right to insist on peer reviewed work by actual scientists when looking for evidence of the actual warming, as opposed to a simple quote.>> <And yet rarely provide them. Jon never seems to want to discuss the details about what the concensus among climate scientists is. I think it's because the concensus isn't alarming enough.> Jon's already done so, and tiggertoo just did so. <Actually, no credible science organization is saying that.> Amazing. That post was after tiggertoo's post, which included this: "Endorsed by: National Academy of Sciences, United States of America; Chinese Academy of Sciences, China; Royal Society, United Kingdom; Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia; Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil; Royal Society of Canada, Canada; Academié des Sciences, France; Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany; Indian National Science Academy, India; Accademia dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan, Japan."
Originally Posted By jonvn "<Actually, no credible science organization is saying that.> Amazing. That post was after tiggertoo's post, which included this:" This is why it is a waste of time to respond to him. He can't understand anything he reads, or purposefully ignores large chunks of it. There simply is no debate here. No credible scientific organization, as has been repeatedly shown, disagrees. What we are left with is about three people. One who listens to Rush, and does nothing but parrot him and can't follow any of this information, no matter how plainly it is put (and who is banned), two, some guy who doesn't understand what science is, and keeps quoting Op-Ed pieces as if he thinks that means anything (what a waste of time, no one is even reading them) and a third guy who simply is being dishonest in his responses, and is trying to evade and disrupt the conversation. Really strong opposition here. Meanwhile, even Exxon is trying to figure out ways to curtail the problem. Because, of course, they are leftists. Right.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer STOP DRINKING BOTTLED WATER!!!! <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article732079.ece" target="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t ol/news/uk/article732079.ece</a> >>THE next time you reach for bottled water stacked on the supermarket shelf, spare a thought for the planet. You may think that it is better for you to buy such water, but better for the environment it certainly is not. Despite its pure image, bottled water is making a significant contribution to climate change. The industry produces as much greenhouse gas as the electricity consumption of about 20,000 homes in a year, according to research by The Times. To supply the more than two billion litres of bottled water that is consumed by Britons every year, a quarter of which comes from abroad, bottled-water companies produce 33,200 tonnes of CO2 emissions, just less than the electricity consumption of 20,000 households, and the equivalent of the energy needs of 6,000 households. << SAVE THE PLANET, drink out of the tap!
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I knew that bottled water would somehow end up killing us! (Only I figured terrorists would poison it all.)
Originally Posted By jonvn Of course drinking bottled water is an utter waste. It's water. The plastic consumed alone is wasteful. So?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My only mistake was saying "quote" when one of them passages (but not all) was a paraphrase. And from this somehow you think you're right.> And I was right about that. <Tiggertoo's posts certainly did, much better than mine.> Agreed. <But Tiggertoo's posts clearly show both what the consensus is, and that there are climatologists saying flatly what it is.> Yes, and it clearly is not what jonvn thinks it is, and yet he tries to insult anyone who points that out to him. <We do know that his actual quotes back up the paraphrase as reported, not your fantasy that somehow he might have said something 180 degrees different.> I never claimed he might have said something 180 degrees different. The point I'm trying to get across is that there are subtle differences between what climatologists believe, and the alarmists keep trying to paint them all the same, and as saying the worst. When people hear one climate scientist saying the polar caps are going to melt, and then somebody else comes along and says almost all climate scientists agree what is happening, it gives a distorted picture of what the actual concensus amongst climate scientists is. <Jon's already done so, and tiggertoo just did so.> Well, you're half right.
