patrick.net

It amazes me how people still act like there is a Global Warming debate.

There is really no debate. "Global warming" is unproven.

As someone noted earlier practically all climate scientists not emplyed by Big Oil or their Cohorts say global warming exists and since they spent their careers being snickerd at they have mountains of evidence to back them up.

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.show/CT/PW/k/737

"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased."

Remember, environmental interest groups are very powerful. They will stop at nothing to implement their vision - a "green" world that they think is "timeless" and beautiful. The fact is that Nature changes anyway.

Absolutely Exists; it’s all a matter of timeframe of consideration. Eventually the sun will swell up and cause quite a bit of heating. Of course, there is a small possibility that won’t happen and instead equally devastating global cooling will ensue.

Randy, Global Warming implies certain "keywords":

greenhouse gases, human activities, global climate changes, ...

Perhaps the sun will be destroyed by the aliens before it swells up. ;)

Another article to read:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3400

Am I a villain yet? :twisted:

amazing how the hockey stick graph mirrors house prices…

See, it is a hoax. ;)

Here is another link:

http://www.conservativemonitor.com/books03/44.shtml

It actually talk about State of Fear, which IMO is Crichton's best. :)

hey Peter, in Despot Monthy they had an article about how global warming is actually good and contributes to the GDP. Can’t find the damn link though.

I will not be surprised. Something must be good for some. The housing bubble has been great for the homeowners.

The scientific community is heaveily influenced by political correctness.

Science is not as objective as we would like.

I am completely unconvinced by a global climate model created for only decades worth of data. This is an extreme form of curve-fitting.

hmm so fundamentalist religious types and those more interested in personal wealth have no agenda?

I see scientific fundamentalism as a form of religious fundamentalism.

so do I but that doesn’t change the fact that you are using a set of arguments against science grounded in the religious and capitalist camps who would appear to me to have a far weaker hold on physical reality

Science is a religion.

Peter P,

You've elevated postmodernism to a whole new level. ;)

You’ve elevated postmodernism to a whole new level.

Huh? How was your vacation?

Peter P,

Randy, Global Warming implies certain “keywords”:

Perhaps the sun will be destroyed by the aliens before it swells up.

"Global Warming" does imply those things. One of those things is global climate changes which are natural, ie. not related to man's technological activities on the planet.

All naturally caused global warming on the Earth is related to either (a) the sun's active output or (b) the solar disc's former matter which has since become captive to the gravity wells of other hunks of the solar disc's former matter.

Therefore, all global warming of natural origin on the Earth is caused by the Sun.*

So it must be true that the terrestrial warming as caused by the solar death throws of our star fall into the category of "global warming".

*I'm not sure if cosmic radiation emanating from outside our system add any measurable energy to the Earth's system. If so, then perhaps aliens tweaking with nearby stars and/or galaxies are to blame...

Randy is always full of wisdom. :)

Bap33,

I think you know that I'm no "lib". Nonetheless, you are wrong about vulcanism versus human derived emissions when it comes to CO2. It's a bit irrelevant of an argument anyway but all that really matters is whether human activities are releasing carbon net of the Earth's natural carbon sinks. Actually, there is no debate about that either. Of course we are doing so by digging up old carbon from deep beneath the crust and releasing it.

The question is whether this matters or not. Denying the physical evidence doesn't do you position any justice and isn't even necessary. You can make a perfectly good argument based upon questioning the reliability of long-term weather & climate models, and the sensitivity of these models to marginal carbon emissions.

I have another question, specifically about your statement It’s a political issue, PERIOD.

Assume you are right and that all global warming has nothing to do with human carbon emissions. But also assume that we eventually determine that a natural catastrophic climate shift -- like an ice age -- is beginning. As an objective, reasonable person, I ask you: HOW DOES THIS CHANGE OUR RESPONSE? Assuming that we want to survive, wouldn't we want to figure out what we can do to survive it, even if that involves making some changes?

It's as if an asteroid were detected heading towards Earth, and somehow the issue got politicized. The "libs" are insisting we must spend trillions of dollars building a rocket to stop it...damn tax and spend commies, while the conservatives insist that humans had nothing to do with causing the problem so life is good. Sorry, I vote that if we can do something to save our collective arses, regardless of politics, then we have an obligation to at least try. Or has willing suicide been ruled no longer a sin in your self-professed moral code?

As it gets hotter and the weather worsens I’m sure you’ll have explanations for that as well.

No, not necessarily. There will just be no explanations. Global warming as a theory will not offer satisfactory explanations as well.

Global warming is a political issue.

Sorry, I vote that if we can do something to save our collective arses, regardless of politics, then we have an obligation to at least try.

This I absolutely agree.

And I also think that sensible environmental policies are necessary. It is just that the global warming theory smells a bit fishy.

SQT,

I think you got the point across more clearly and with far fewer words :)

Are our weather patterns going to change dramatically? And if so, what can we do, or what should we do about it?

I afraid so. I doubt anything can be done realistically. Nature has a mind of its own. We should embrace the changes.

Peter P,

I agree. My main beef is that the politicization of the issue has caused us to link "the theory of global warming" with "the evidence of progressive climate change". Theories are important, and will play a role in understanding science that will help us deal with it. But evidence should drive our policy, not theory.

The problem is that no one is really able to debate and refine the evidence because every bit of data gets instantly wrapped up in a polarizing political scrap.

I was only half joking about the asteroid scenario. Unlike the movies about such an event, I really would expect that no one would do anything until it was probably too late, mainly because it would cost so much money that partisans would be arguing that the data was wrong and the asteroid would miss us, or wouldn't damage us, etc. That would cause the other side to start spreading fear and gloom to stoke up support. All the while the clock would keep ticking.

Unlike the movies about such an event, I really would expect that no one would do anything until it was probably too late, mainly because it would cost so much money that partisans would be arguing that the data was wrong and the asteroid would miss us, or wouldn’t damage us, etc. That would cause the other side to start spreading fear and gloom to stoke up support. All the while the clock would keep ticking.

Randy, there is not much we can do about a large, earth-bound asteroid. If we we find out soon enough, we can at most save a small group of people.

I afraid so. I doubt anything can be done realistically. Nature has a mind of its own. We should embrace the changes.

Lol. I can hear that argument now were a mile-wide asteroid is tumbling towards us with 95% certainty.

Randy, there is not much we can do about a large, earth-bound asteroid. If we we find out soon enough, we can at most save a small group of people.

So we obviously shouldn't try? We can, in fact, do quite a bit if detected early enough and responded to early enough. It would require decisive action, though. Which, judging from this discussion, is an impossibility.

So, I retract me statement. There isn't much we would do about it.

So we obviously shouldn’t try? We can, in fact, do quite a bit if detected early enough and responded to early enough. It would require decisive action, though. Which, judging from this discussion, is an impossibility.

You have a point. We should probably try.

It's a bubble inside a balloon surrounded by a Zeppelin filled wit hydrogen gas.

Bap talks straight.

Gore better than GWB better than Clinton

because
Gore went to Nam (alleged to avoid combat zones, though)
GWB served in air national guard and knew how to fly a jet
Clinton fled abroad and learnt how to smoke pot without inhaling

But all of them suck because they never saw combat when their fellow men were dying.

Having gotten a Ph.D. myself from a top Ivy school and seeing what kind of trainining people went through, I wouldn't place too much confidence in the opinions of Climatologists, Gynocologists, Economists, blah blah blah. Brainy people are not necessarily intellectual. These days it is very, very difficult for a Ph.D. person to have broad and substantial understanding in his/her field. (I happened to be of the rare breed, hence was sought after upon my graduation. But I am better than most educated people anyway. It's not me, it's a God-given gift.) Most people are so narrowly focused that they should not be able to form a coherent and informed opinion regarding such a gigantic issue as global warming. Intellectual giants do exist. But there are very few in this world. When I see one, I would recognize. I haven't met any. Those 2500 international climatologists are just like ordinary people, except that they have gone through years of training (with low pay). I wouldn't place too much confidence in either camp of scientists.

Nobody knows for sure what causes current spat of global warming.

Bap, I absolutely agree. 3 years might be too long. I haven't gone through one. So I don't know how long the service should be. 2 years is a minimum.

It probably shouldn't be mandatory. If it is, we are becoming a fascist or communist state. However, proper social and financial incentives could be introduced to entice aspiring real men to serve. Sissies could also be turned into real men if they choose to serve. A major social incentive is to give higher status to the military people than they receive now. This will not make the military more arrogant and menacing to the society, as the young people who go through the service eventually come back to the civilian socity. There will be a bond between the civilian society and the military.

you're all drunk...

is the rain forest that has burned for the last 17 years the amazon basin? those are fires set by clear fellers clearing land for farming, they are not natural. bush fires are kept to a minimum here by doing selective strip burning, mainly in the interests of protecting property. eucalypts have actually evolved to regenerate after a bush fire also, they are not destroyed. the trunks remain standing and alive, and new leaf growth comes out shortly afterwards.

however, i don't find the arguments about the black death and wood as fuel convincing, it doesn't seem to map to population densities, fuel types and use and the 'mini ice age' of the last few centuries at all... serious release of CO2 by man has really only occurred since the advent of the industrial revolution, particularly using coal and oil as fuel. i think the medieval warming evidence is due to natural cyclic fluctuations. we just don't know what's causing any possible warming, and whether it is going to be a positive feedback loop or just plateau at a slightly warmer point.

it could become a catastrophe with major crop failure due to sudden temperature increases which the traditional plant forms won't be able to tolerate. you could be growing bananas in nebraska...

i'm still not going to buy any beachfront property at sea level...

definitely drunk...

0.8%? -- what about the output of coal-burning power stations? vehicles... industry...

where does the other 99.2% come from? breathing.. decomposition... forest fires...

Different Sean wrote:

> i’m still not going to buy any beachfront property at sea level…

I was just thinking that since the only science training most left wingers had was in Jr. HS we should join them in supporting the doom and gloom “global warming problem”. Since most liberals live in costal “blue states” we can get them to sell their costal real estate at bargain prices and head for the hills. Next time I hear a liberal say “Each HUMMER sold puts 10 tons of greenhouse gasses in to the air per year and helps to raise sea level” I’ll respond with “I heard it is a MILLION tons of gasses and did you hear that the homes on Lido Island in Newport are starting to flood at high tide, it’s only a matter of time before Sea Cliff here in SF is under water”…

P.S. Good article below that supports global warming put points out that it is not as bad as most liberals think. With sea levels rising by an average of .05mm per year it will be over 500 years before they are a full inch higher…

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635077/posts

You guys still think there’s a bubble? Did you not see DQNEWS.com? New record high.

Congrats to Bay Area homeowners. But do you think global warming is real? :)

San Francisco, only the 34th most expensive city in the world.

We had this discussion last year. They used rent for comparison.

Rent is still cheap. It is going up though.

I never liked BA and the attendant lib parasites. My only worry: These parasites will migrate en masse to other Pacific Northwest states and ruin our lives. Shotguns, guys. We know the libs can’t shoot straight.

Careful, with comments like this you just might find yourself spooning a large 1/2 mexi man.

SR, fair enough. I was going to say Intel did some good things.

S.X.,

Did I say Kalifornikers? No. I said BA libs, which ruled out Mexicans. Period. Did you know that Mexicans in Kalifornia vote overwhelming republican? 1/2 Mex? I don't know. You be the judge.

Peter P,

The road trip was good. I wish I took a pair of Tevas along and hiked more slot canyons. Let me know if you want to see pictures.

To be fair, republicans aren't conservatives, either. In Amerika, center right is probably the best position.