You mean, the sky isnt falling!?

[doodude]

Beyond the hype...


http://petitionproject.org/

[Pixel_Outlaw]

Global Warming has been used to an extent as a money making hype. I'm convinced that it is part of a bigger natural process.

[jpj]

typical makind's ego thinking we are at the centre of everything...
we think we caused temperatures to rise, and also think we can prevent it

while the mean average temperature has risen if you look over 1 century, temperatures were on a slow decline between 1940 and 1970. and if you added up all the countries carbon emissions, it would still be a drop in the ocean compared to our planets biggest source of carbon gases: the ocean. the planet has natural heating and cooling cycles. and our sun's temperature isn't static either. if you take a graph plotting the mean average temperature of the planet for the last 100 years, and then transpose it onto a graph showing sunspots per year (extremely hot explosions on the surface of the sun), it's a direct correlation.

the majority of scientists researching global warming in the west are paid by government grants. these governments then want to promote eco-friendly practices, condemning developing countries while still not agreeing to cap their own levels of pollution.

tl;dr america wants to keep china and india poor

[Twiddle]

global warming is actually good for plant life t m y k

not the toxic chemicals and gases (which pose more dangers (the ones most people don't actually care about) than just global warming) that are associated with greenhouse gases, but a temperature increase (with moisture) helps plants thrive better

[Arvandor]

You know what's really funny? There is NOTHING that links carbon dioxide to being a greenhouse gas, and nothing to prove that more CO2 is warming our planet.

Water vapor, however, IS a greenhouse gas. So those hydrogen cars everyone is working on? Yeah, the next big thing for the media and general public to get all fussy about is global moisturizing.

There will always be something for the world to bitch about, and it will almost always be made out of nothing.

[neorichieb1971]

What is "not" necessarily harmful to the environment doesn't mean its not harmful to us as human beings. Put a billion more cars on the road and see if you can breathe clean air.

[CMoon]

Just for a little counter-counter-hype to the counter-hype started in this thread:

Climate 'accelerating bird loss' (BBC news)

I think we are all used to the fact that the news site you read/watch will determine whether global warming is real or not. I also find it remarkable that all those non-US scientists have been so vocal about global warming while the US scientists are apparently signing this petition (even one's with PhD's woohoo!)

Personally, I think anytime you involve big money and politics, objectivity (even scientific objectivity) goes down the shitter.

Ultimately I rather like the idea of curbing the CO2 omissions and reducing resources uses because of all the other positives that come from reducing our already gluttonous lifestyle. We can accept the null hypothesis and still agree that Americans need to say goodbye to their SUVs.

You know what's really funny? There is NOTHING that links carbon dioxide to being a greenhouse gas, and nothing to prove that more CO2 is warming our planet.

Wut?

[BulletMagnet]

A few offhand concerns regarding the thing you linked...

1) 30,000-plus signatures sounds like a lot, but I'm curious to know how many scientists worldwide have "signed on" to the alternate side of the argument, for comparison purposes. On that note...

2) Apparently all of the signatures on this list have come from scientists from the USA - offhand I did not see an explanation on the site of why scientists from elsewhere in the world were apparently not consulted for their opinions. It is noted that the project is intended for the US government specifically, but that in itself is not an excuse as to why the findings of the rest of the world would not be of any concern.

3) Again, 30K sigs sounds impressive, but this project has been going on for about 10 years now, long before climate change was ever on most people's radar. The site does say that "a majority" of the names on the list either "signed or re-signed" within the past year or so, but does not explain how much of a majority this is, or what it means to have "re-signed" the petition.

Also, of course, there's the following, from here (boldface mine) -

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

4) Supposedly the people running the project take measures to weed out fake or duplicate signatures, but especially in light of this similar "project" (which was also on a far smaller scale), forgive me for not taking such claims immediately at face value. The site claims that it does not have any corporate donors, but only accepts contributions from private individuals - though I'm sure they wouldn't release the information if asked, I'd be interested in knowing exactly who some of those "individuals" might be, and what their connections are.

5) As many "inactivist" efforts of this type do, the only concern I noted offhand was that carbon dioxide might not be culpable when it comes to climate change - no mention appears to be made to other possible culprits, or whether any of them are worth being concerned about.

6) The project is specifically listed as having been started by physicists and physical chemists - that said, I find it interesting that, while the breakdown of the specific scientific fields of study and locations of the general number is available, one is not able to put a name on the list together with either category via any available search, nor see where any of the signatories is employed or does his/her studies (the only thing noted is whether or not the person has a PhD). Basically, to find out anything about any of these people you'll have to do your own research...which leads me to the following, from here -

The list exists, and there are indeed several bright people on it, notably Lindzen from MIT, but by and large the other names I have managed to establish firmly are the names of people with "divinity" degrees issued by Oral Roberts and Bob Jones U, or --- and this is kind of strange --- people who are certainly very old if they aren't already dead, and who worked for the military in some capacity or another but who, judging by some of the projects they worked on, lost their minds. Indeed, it is actually fun to pick a name at random then go looking for it's owner. More often than not you will find they worked on some project to along the lines of perpetual motion, cold fusion, or a method of turning gold into cheese (no, I didn't get the order wrong).

I also note that, while the FAQ mentions efforts to note those signatories who have died since the project began, there is no mention as to what's done if someone switches his/her position somewhere along the line.

7) While the site justifies its choice of publishing its findings in the unusual venue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons via copyright issues, it does not note the following, from here (again, boldface mine) -

Then you look at the content of the Fall 2007 issue of the publication and you see that they discuss the connection between breast cancer and abortion (regardless of your ethical views on abortion, the National Cancer Institute says there’s no connection), liberalism as a mental disorder (perhaps an entertaining read, but unlikely to be scientific) and government spending vs. private health care (is this an economics journal?). This choice of topics of course gives you the distinct impression that you’re not looking at a scientific publication but one that’s intended to provide cover for political purposes (e.g. for people who would like to make money selling fosil fuels without taking responsibility for the environmental effects of burning those fuels).

Try again, fellas.

[shoe-sama]

There is NOTHING that links carbon dioxide to being a greenhouse gas

there's graphs that show it rising after the temperature rises lol

[JoshF]

typical makind's ego thinking we are at the centre of everything.

So ego is the motivation for conservation? Polluting for profit clearly has the wider scope.

the planet has natural heating and cooling cycles

Which part of the natural process includes a punctured ozone layer?

[Twiddle]

the planet has natural heating and cooling cycles

Which part of the natural process includes a punctured ozone layer?

nuclear war

I'm all for reducing human footprint on the ecosystem, but carbon dioxide isn't the only factor, nor is global warming the only environmental concern. In fact, it being the main concern is why Americans are so indifferent about environmental issues as opposed to all the toxic shit like groundwater lead, mercury, severe climate whoopsies caused by temperature increases, and carbon monoxide emissions (to name a few things) that actually kill you far faster than a yearly raise of 2 degrees Fahrenheit in a climate stable area.

But hey, when that clears up, plants will have a way better time especially with the nutrients from the corpses of billions of people and other assorted fauna, making room for another dominant species to take over.

[TWITCHDOCTOR]

the planet has natural heating and cooling cycles

Which part of the natural process includes a punctured ozone layer?

nuclear war

I'm all for reducing human footprint on the ecosystem, but carbon dioxide isn't the only factor, nor is global warming the only environmental concern. In fact, it being the main concern is why Americans are so indifferent about environmental issues as opposed to all the toxic shit like groundwater lead, mercury, severe climate whoopsies caused by temperature increases, and carbon monoxide emissions (to name a few things) that actually kill you far faster than a yearly raise of 2 degrees Fahrenheit in a climate stable area.

But hey, when that clears up, plants will have a way better time especially with the nutrients from the corpses of billions of people and other assorted fauna, making room for another dominant species to take over.

Yea, but with all of the people gone, how do you suppose the plants will breath? Lets remember, they need the air we breath out (carbon dioxide).

[Twiddle]

bacteria do a far better job shitting out carbon dioxide

[moozooh]

Plants lived before animals did, so it's not a problem at all. :)

[doodude]

Ive read in several articles ( this just being the 1st one up from google ) that the greatest pollutant is:

http://talk.livedaily.com/showthread.php?t=558643

Ive also read that the many more world scientist who have signed onto the UN claim that the sky is...um that global warming is real havent actually signed onto the UN claim as a whole but instead have only signed onto the one small bit of information that they themselves are involved in & that most (?) dont agree with the findings of others.
Ive also read, (no links for support ) that there are many of these same scientist who have threatened & who are presently in litigation to have their name removed from the UN list because they dont agree with it.

The thing that really gets me is that in the 1970s that these same scientist were dooming the planet to an ICE AGE because temps were dropping. Scientist were developing a plan to drop ash/soot on ice capped mountains to melt the ice & slown down the coming ICE AGE! WTF!?

Plants lived before animals did, so it's not a problem at all.

And if I remember my grade school text, the drawn pix of the early earth were pretty damn leafy then too...

[Ed Oscuro]

global warming is actually good for plant life t m y k

But then you have pests that do better in the warmer climates killing off the plants, which is such a problem that many Canadian forests are going to become a net carbon producer, instead of a container.

[Ceph]

You know what's really funny? There is NOTHING that links carbon dioxide to being a greenhouse gas

You know what's actually funny: People with opinions based on superstition, false assumptions, hearsay and ignorance.

@thread
Sorry, not going to waste my time with this. Smoking causes cancer, God is a creation of man, anti-aging cream doesn't work, and carbon dioxide absorbs part of the electromagnetic radiation (resulting in molecular vibrations), which means that instead of being radiated back into space said radiation turns into heat and remains in the earth's atmosphere, causing the temperature to go up.

Here endeth the lesson.

[D]

You know what is starting to happen now?
all of those polution particles are lcogging up the sky and less and less potent sunrays will reach the earth. it will get darker and stuff will grow at a stagnating rate.

omfg global warming was invented by Bush and he blew up world trade centre with his father.

[JoshF]

Rationalism is a mental disorder.

[moozooh]

omfg global warming was invented by Bush and he blew up world trade centre with his father.

Yeah, Bush's father was one explosive fellow.

[Skykid]

Rationalism is a mental disorder.

HA HA!

[Twiddle]

global warming is actually good for plant life t m y k

But then you have pests that do better in the warmer climates killing off the plants, which is such a problem that many Canadian forests are going to become a net carbon producer, instead of a container.

When humans are gone, those pests are going to kill themselves by going above sustainable levels.

Also, what never gets into the heads of lobbyists (or does but they don't give a shit anyway) is that the ecosystem is interconnected and chaos theory is in full effect here. You destroy one plant or animal species, a necessary predator or prey loses population, and with them, the benefits of having them falter. We really are that big of a monkey wrench on the ecosystem, and we're not in a position to slow this down anymore short of severe human reduction or extinction.

[Michaelm]

Well the hype is just the hype.
Fact is that we have been polluting our atmosphere heavily for the last 100 years and it's just incredibly dumb to state that this didn't have an effect on our world.
Sure there might be plenty of other factors that ultimately led to the global warming but dissing the possibility that we humans are a main factor in all this is extremely unbelievable.

[antron]

Remember the ozone hole we created, and then closed, just with our aerosole cans and air conditioners. Very real stuff.

[doodude]

I think my problem with the Global Warming "craze" is the same with any subject or anyone who states their so-called truth as the only truth & so therefore there is no more room for discussion. What complete assholes!

Thirty years ago we were headed for a new ice age because the earth was cooling down too much too fast.
Now were getting too warm to fast.
This is beginning to sound like some sort of a cycle. We get warmer. We get cooler. Then we get just right. Sounds like a childrens story...

We should do all we can to keep the earth as pristine as possible.
But if all we do is say one country can emit X amount of pollutants & another country can emit Y & this country can sell its share to that country for trillions of $/Euro's/Yen or whatever then were all just full of shit anyway.

[jpj]

the planet has natural heating and cooling cycles

Which part of the natural process includes a punctured ozone layer?

ah, it's called milankovitch cycles. in a couple of hundred years we will enter a period of the earth cooling. ice ages are determined by our planets rotation around the sun. nothing we can do about it.

also:

"the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect

Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn't this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature, so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat loss catches up with heat retention"

new scientist

another interesting thread
shoe-sama on holiday or something?

[trivial]

What Ceph said.

This thread has all the hallmarks of an evolution "debate". GG

[doodude]

new scientist

Very interesting article. Its a shame that so many of the oh so enlightened & open minded scientific minds wont bother to read it.

It will be dismissed in the usual fashion with claims of no time & the other side being ignorant of what real truth is.

Ho Hum, how droll...

[Emperor Fossil]

ah, it's called milankovitch cycles. in a couple of hundred years we will enter a period of the earth cooling. ice ages are determined by our planets rotation around the sun. nothing we can do about it.

In regards to milankovitch cycles, that article you linked to states:

It has also long been recognised that they cannot fully explain the dramatic temperature switches between ice ages and interglacials.

Did you fully read the article, or just skim through for stuff that you mistakenly thought supported your "do nothing" mindset?

"the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect

Way to selectively quote. That quote directly leads on to:

And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.

Next...

Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn't this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature, so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat loss catches up with heat retention"

Oh goody. It's comforting to know that after our coastal cities are underwater, and the world's agricultural industry has been thrown into a tailspin due to changing climate patterns, things will eventually stop warming up so we won't end up being like Venus. Come on, man... Do you really think the author intended for readers to take this information as a reason to say "Everything's cool guys. There's no need to be concerned."

new scientist

The thrust of the article was that even if it isn't clear whether increased co2 levels trigger warming, in fact, even if they don't, once warming starts, rising co2 levels exacerbate and prolong that warming (for thousands of years, the article suggests).

In no way does that article promote a "co2 isn't a problem, we should just carry on as normal cos there's nothing we can do about it" position. If this is what you got from it, I suggest you read it again. In fact perhaps you should spend some time with the 26 Climate Myths NewScientist feature.



-----------

The thing that really gets me is that in the 1970s that these same scientist were dooming the planet to an ICE AGE because temps were dropping. Scientist were developing a plan to drop ash/soot on ice capped mountains to melt the ice & slown down the coming ICE AGE! WTF!?

Oh really? The same scientists? The same number of scientists? Or perhaps you are talking out of your arse?

You were hoping people would read that NewScientist article, right? Well here's another: Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

It's a short article, and the whole thing is worth reading, but the key points are:

- At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage.
- One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US.
- Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run.
- A 1975 report by the US National Academy of Sciences merely called for more research.
- The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense – and sometimes ferocious – scrutiny. According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity.

Short form: The extent of the scientific consensus on the risk a possible ice-age in the 70s simply cannot compare to the scientific consensus on the reality of global warming today.

[Twiddle]

I can still buy ipods, therefore the sky isn't falling