CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Global Warming (ignore the thread if you don't like the topi

by CougarClaw · 9/12/2011

Advertisement
C
CougarClaw
I realize this topic brings out the worst in some people, but I just read a very well written article by none other than our favorite climatologist Al Gore:



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



probably wouldn't have impacted me as much if I hadn't also seen the latest "low arctic ice" measurement on CNN.



http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/12/arctic-ice-levels-hit-historic-low-researchers-say/?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I've heard arguments on both sides and previously bought into the whole Green-movement-is-about-pushing-the-liberal-agenda and how it's a farce but now I'm not so sure. I like to consider myself a rational person and Al Gore does a very good job with his argument of shifting the question of science to a question of power. i have no doubt there are scientists being paid to discover evidences for both sides of the issue, but it does seem to me that there is more evidence to support than to deny. Not trying to be inflammatory and I don't want a fight, just a rational discussion.



(and please read the articles if you want to comment on how off-base I am.)
S
Sammich
Isn't it just possible that the cause of climate change is just a controversial topic? Can't people realize that science is incapable (using current methods) of conclusively proving the cause of climate trends or fluctuations?



If Al Gore wants to believe that the correlative relationships are causal, that is fine. He can pursue legislation to control emissions to his heart's content. But to act like science is firmly on his side is to misunderstand the nature and limitations of science. He is pushing an agenda, just like anyone else who acts like they have the final answer on this issue.



There are several reasons why economics, macroevolution, and climate change will continue to be controversial topics, and it's because the science for them is soft right now. Yes, they have political ramifications. Yes, there are religious zealots (on both sides) that want to push their version of things. But most importantly, all of them are based on complex systems that cannot be observed and tied to their causes in real-time. We can study them historically, and then draw conclusions based on their relationships to the limited things we see related to them in history. And while those relationships may sound very convincing, they cannot be defined under the laws of science and logic as proof.
B
BroncoBot
I read the first page and got bored by the analogy. Sorry.
S
snoscythe
Not too many people argue Global Warming, what people argue is the "Anthropomorphic" that Gore et'al put in front of it.



We are working on an oil and gas project where we have 27 potential productive intervals, and each of those intervals was created by successive warming and cooling periods in the earth's atmosphere and the associated rise and fall of sea levels. The earth warms and cools, and it's been in a relatively cool period for all of humankind's recorded history. It's a pretty high hurdle to clear to tell me that this is caused by humans when these cycles occurred long before humans, and no one has come close to clearing the hurdles, but Gore and many others have made oodles of money from simply claiming it.
B
BroncoBot
^^^This.



The fact that Gore has made so much money from this makes his a biased argument. And as sno pointed out, there have been plenty of warming/cooling periods not associated with human's pumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere.



When I graduated from BYU one of the speakers said that the trend is to scare people into thinking a certain way. Kind of a "the sky is falling" argument to persuade. Certainly fits the (manmade) global warming theorists. Don't have to look back to far when science demanded that we burn tires in antarctica to keep the world from going into a ice age.
Advertisement
M
Mars
Sammich wrote:
Can't people realize that science is incapable (using current methods) of conclusively proving the cause of climate trends or fluctuations? ...the science for them is soft right now... We can study them historically, and then draw conclusions based on their relationships to the limited things we see related to them in history. And while those relationships may sound very convincing, they cannot be defined under the laws of science and logic as proof.

This. People try to claim what the weather will be like 100 years from now, when they don't have the science to tell us what the weather will be like on Friday. It's a pitiful farce. Crichton will set them straight. :P
T
tww
Seeing as how Al Gore has shown a propensity to falsify information in an attempt to deceive for his own personal enrichment (An Inconvenient Truth, where he used CG to create melting glaciers and used other falsified research for his numbers) and that he has been quite willing to lie and otherwise break the law as long as he thinks that he will not go to prison ("No controlling authority," after taking illegal Chinese money), not to mention his hypocrisy in his personal life style (carbon footprint), I ask these questions. Why would a clear thinking person give the man the time of day by listening to anything he says? Why should anyone believe or trust him now?



To me, he has less credibility than Bernie Madoff and to even engage him in conversation is to warm the snake in your coat.
B
BoiseBYU
The question of import is not whether there is global warming. There is. And it is NOT whether man is THE cause. The science can't answer that yet. THE question, to me, is whether man's activity has an affect on global warming. Perhaps some of this global warming is natural earth rythyms or whatever, but what if some of is accentuated or fostered by our fossil fuel use? You cannot rule out that man has NO effect on global warming. Thus, what to do? To me it seems to me the wise or prudent thing to be doing is migrating away from fossile fuels. We cannot afford to be wrong and going full bore on fossible fuels and then ultimately find out that their usage does add to or cause GW. In a perfect world where I was philosopher king, I'd consider carbon credits and taxes on fossil fuel to try and better internalize the costs of use of these products. Don't flame too greatly you all....I just see a scriptural mandate that we are stewards of this world and as stewards being cautious and careful seems right to me. We need fewer Al Gores and Rush Limbaughs on this issue .
B
BroncoBot
In an age where 5 "green companies" have went under who were basically handed money on a silver platter (stimulus package) by the US government, and top scientists are resigning from certain positions because they view the "manmade" global warming push to be too over the top, it's safe to say the US government has no business getting involved. If private companies figures out a way to make energy more efficiently I'm all for getting away from the oil business. But why force taxpayers to foot the bill for something that has no hard evidence? If I was philosopher king I'd tell the UN to get their grubby hands out of the United State's business. I'd let the states retain their rights to decide on this issue, and if I was governor I'd do whatever the will of the people was on the issue.



That's my only beef with this whole issue. If Gore is right (his lifestyle sure doesn't sound convinced) and can get the private sector and investors to buy into his ideas than that's his business and I don't really care a bit what he's doing. But when he demands that the government gets involved and forces people to go along with what might very well be a charade, it's going to end up costing taxpayers. There are too many companies out there just waiting for a check from uncle sam (solyndra) who have no product to offer at all. The lower class are going to be the hardest hit in the end.
C
CougarClaw
I actually appreciate Boise's comments because the key part of Gore's linked article is that rather than debunk Global warming scientifically, the opposing view is changing the debate. It's not one of warming, but one of power i.e. "Gore is a hypocrite" "governments are doing this with ulterior motives"," it's a scare tactic" which is actually a very persuasive approach (beit True or false).



most of you sound like you believe Global warming is a farce, but your rationale has more to do with power arguments, than scientific ones. Perhaps it is a power grab, but that doesn't make the underlying argument untrue. And yes Declo a big-time scientist resigned over global warming but compare that to a quote from Gore's article:


rolling Stones wrote:
"This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."


So now the "power" argument goes, 'all those groups are paid off' or 'these groups are lying' ,or "they receive funding from the government'. But that's a lot of scientific power and a lot of people to buy-off. Granted this is the same scientific community that once declared the earth flat, among other gaffes, so they're not without fault but I'm not sure I'm buying the power argument anymore.
Advertisement
S
Schmoe
What about the "global warming and cooling cycles have always happened and will continue to happen regardless of human activity and the alleged 'greenhouse gasses' than mankind contributes to the atmosphere are less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses contributed" argument?
N
nuk13
I agree with you Schmoe. I do not believe Gore represents the truth but the power money thing. Why doesn't he lead his cause by moving out of his house giving up his suvs and getting a horse.



Does anyone have a comment by Gore's 3000 on the hisorical fluctuations of warming and cooling? By the way some of them were well into human history. What about all the species that became extinct before humans?
U
urroner
What evidence is there that man is the major cause of "global warming?"



If there is a lot of hurricanes, it's global warming. If there are few hurricanes, it's global warming?



If the average temperature is higher than usual, it's global warming. If the average temperature is lower than usual, it's global warming.



If there is snow in Colorado in the middle of summer, it's global warming. If there's not enough snow in Colorado in the middle of winter, it's global warming.



If there are too many sunspots, it's global warming. If there are not enough sunspots, it's global warming.



If there is an dog with bad breath next door, it's global warming. If the cat on the other next door is skag nasty, it's global warming.



Nothing like being able to eat your cake and have it too.
T
tww
CougarClaw wrote:
I actually appreciate Boise's comments because the key part of Gore's linked article is that rather than debunk Global warming scientifically, the opposing view is changing the debate. It's not one of warming, but one of power i.e. "Gore is a hypocrite" "governments are doing this with ulterior motives"," it's a scare tactic" which is actually a very persuasive approach (beit True or false).



most of you sound like you believe Global warming is a farce, but your rationale has more to do with power arguments, than scientific ones. Perhaps it is a power grab, but that doesn't make the underlying argument untrue. And yes Declo a big-time scientist resigned over global warming but compare that to a quote from Gore's article:


"This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."


So now the "power" argument goes, 'all those groups are paid off' or 'these groups are lying' ,or "they receive funding from the government'. But that's a lot of scientific power and a lot of people to buy-off. Granted this is the same scientific community that once declared the earth flat, among other gaffes, so they're not without fault but I'm not sure I'm buying the power argument anymore.


It is interesting that you would refer to this quote. It defeats itself. Let's start with, "the evidence was judged to be unequivocal." Unequivocal means, leaving no doubt, unambiguous. The reality is that the evidence is very equivocal, you have admitted so yourself and these people, experts or not, lose credibility when they make such statements. Consensus and unequivocal judgments have nothing to do with science.



It is laughable that Gore claims that "THIS TIME the consensus is even stronger." This time he claims he has 3,000 people and next time it will be 5,000 but that still doesn't make it so no matter how many he can get to say it. If that is the basis for proving fact then there are all kinds of silly notions that are no where near reality that we would have to accept. This is elementary school playground style of influence. Consensus does not matter, only proof matters and they have none so they resort to acts of desperation by throwing out hormonal pms statements.



Let us not act like "silly women laden in sin," running about crying "what if" and "we cannot take the chance" or the next thing we will find ourselves saying, "if you love me pass this bill." There is no cure for such insanity, the best we can do is send flowers and wait for it to pass.



Let us take a manly stand of fact supported by hard evidence.



Forget the numbers of deceived or lying people. There are millions of Chinese that are wrong and there were millions of Germans and Russians that were wrong. So yes it happens all the time, 3,000 is nothing special.



I will give you proof that it is about nothing but money and power. It doesn't matter if the the earth is warming or cooling, their answer is still the same. Give us your money and power and we will save you.



Claw, do you really want resolution or are you just playing matador, throwing out a red cape to see who goes for it only to pull it away and replace it with another?



By the way, the opposition did not create the power argument, Algore did when he wanted power.
U
urroner
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/still-denying-climate-change-reality/story-e6frfhqf-1226139979203


In Gore's world, there are no scientists who don't march in step with him: 97 to 98 per cent of all the climate scientists in the world, who most actively publish in this field, agree, he said, rushing over the pesky subordinate clause.



Forget that the day before his 24-hour show, news came that Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr Ivar Giaever had resigned from the American Physical Society in disgust over climate alarmism.



He wrote: "I cannot live with the statement by the society that evidence of man-made global warming is incontrovertible. The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means the temperature has been amazingly stable.



"Both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this period."



Forget that eminent MIT atmospheric physicist Dr Richard Lindzen, an IPCC lead author, who accuses Gore of shrill alarmism, wrote this year that: "The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this."



Forget that Gore has been labelled "a gross alarmist" by one of the world's foremost meteorologists, hurricane forecaster Dr William Gray.



Gore doesn't care.
Advertisement
B
BroncoBot
CougarClaw wrote:
I actually appreciate Boise's comments because the key part of Gore's linked article is that rather than debunk Global warming scientifically, the opposing view is changing the debate. It's not one of warming, but one of power i.e. "Gore is a hypocrite" "governments are doing this with ulterior motives"," it's a scare tactic" which is actually a very persuasive approach (beit True or false).



most of you sound like you believe Global warming is a farce, but your rationale has more to do with power arguments, than scientific ones. Perhaps it is a power grab, but that doesn't make the underlying argument untrue. And yes Declo a big-time scientist resigned over global warming but compare that to a quote from Gore's article:


"This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."


So now the "power" argument goes, 'all those groups are paid off' or 'these groups are lying' ,or "they receive funding from the government'. But that's a lot of scientific power and a lot of people to buy-off. Granted this is the same scientific community that once declared the earth flat, among other gaffes, so they're not without fault but I'm not sure I'm buying the power argument anymore.

Sure, a bunch of scientists are telling us the world is warming. I can totally accept their evidence. But when I have to pay a dollar extra at the pump for a gallon of gas because it's claimed that my car is causing the warming... that's where I take issue with this, because I feel that the manmade warming crew is totally using this to force money into their projects without any hard evidence as to what is really causing the problem.



And if I'm a scientist who knows that I'm much more likely to be getting a grant by studying the warming of the earth vs. how things are still the same, guess what I'm studying. And if I'm consistently providing "proof" that the earth is in dire need of climate control, I'm more likely to get continued funding. I'm sorry, but scientists are not above questioning. They are human too and know how to work the system. And Al Gore knows how to twist their evidence to fit his theories. It's really that simple to me.
C
CougarClaw
tww wrote:

Claw, do you really want resolution or are you just playing matador, throwing out a red cape to see who goes for it only to pull it away and replace it with another?


Not sure I understand your point. What cape did I present only to yank away? The article i posted deals with using power as a counterpoint to Global warming's "science" and have I not been talking about precisely that?



As for the word "equivocal", I wonder how many people would use that word to describe the link between lung cancer and smoking? It just so happens that causality can't be proved there either. Just statistical probability. People are 99.9999% sure that smoking causes lung cancer but can you say unequivocally that's the case? no you can't. But most Americans stop smoking as a precaution



There is still plenty of evidence out there, and I think the most convincing of them is the natural cycles of warming and cooling. I'm also REALLY conscientious of Hugh Nibley's passage in Enoch The Prophet where he talks about Noah's society and one reason they were destroyed was they thought they could control the elements. Both sound a lot like where we are now.



However, despite those arguments, I still think I'm getting to the point where I'm going to stop "smoking" metaphorically speaking since there won't ever be a consensus. At some point you take the 99.99% and make the leap the rest of the way since I'd rather not risk lung cancer. And not trying to be inflammatory, just enjoy the debate and hearing more points of view. and it gets my mind off that nasty Utah game.
B
BOID
To Claw and Boise, The power argument is not The Proof against AGW---It is merely the explanation for why some would lie. The proof of the falseness of AGW is in the science. Hypothesis and conjecture are only the beginning of the scientific method; they can never be proof by themselves. Unfortunately, AGW has never gotten beyond the level of weak hypothesis. I issued this challenge before, and I will repeat it: just try to find and present any real, concrete, physical evidence for AGW (based on measurement data from field studies). I guarantee that you will not find any. I have looked for a long, long time. It's just not there.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
B
BOID
I should say one more thing.......I believe that you are barking up the wrong tree with the bronchogenic carcinoma analogy. You see, while there is correlation between smoking and CA, there is no correlation linking atmospheric CO2 levels with the temperature record, past or present. And that is not the only problem. There is also no significant warming going on now to link with what ever suspected causality. The mild warming trend from the seventies was not as big as two other trends in the past 150 years. Not only was it not worthy of this debate, it also came to an end about ten years ago. Not only that, but the cooling trend of the past seven years or so has been very embarassing to the GW alarmists. Unlike the bronchogenic CA, there is no physical reality to correlate to any suspected cause when it comes to GW. No loss of ice mass, no rise of sea levels (other than the six to nine inches per century that has been a steady trend for 6000 years), and no temperature trends outside of known fluctuation magnitudes. In the mid nineties, over seventy percent of the public believed in GW, and that it was anthropogenic. That number has dropped to the low 40's, as the people have caught on to what is happening, and have realized that few geologists (the real earth scientists) give it any credence. If you or the mad man Gore have anything to present other than "what if" scenarios that have not yet begun, then please bring it forward for scrutiny.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
Page 1 of 6
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.