Is there ANYBODY in the world that still denies the severity of global warming?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Correct me if I am wrong, since what I know about Kyoto is from reading news reports, etc., but the worst poluters, India and China, seem to be exempt or have less stringent obligations. If this is true, then for this reason alone the United States probably will not support Kyoto

How are India and China worse polluters as countries than the US or Canada, for instance?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Vanguard
John Miller:

I have admitted that current climatological science cannot positively prove whether or not global warming is going on. But then what are these assertions of yours based on? Not climatological science, certainly, since we all agree that it can't prove much about the long term effects of CO2 emissions. So all this is nothing more than wishful thinking and hot air.

For what it is worth, I will once again state that the chance of a runaway greenhouse effect destroying all life on Earth is slight. But this scenario seems to have a lot more scientific basis than your assertions. And regardless of the chance of a greenhouse doomsday, global warming still seems likely to be A Very Bad Thing.

Do you have any concept of what life can take?

the worst that are atmosphere could get to (the hottest it would make the earth), life could still exist here

that is what I base my statements on, the hardiness of life

also have you heard of evolution?, do you have any idea of the scale involved, and what life would do once humans died off?

I don't think that there is anything that global warming can do which would leave only single cell life, and I can't imagine anything which could be done (by global warming) which could destroy all life

I think you should read a little before you do your baseless considerations

you have jsut as much to worry about your next breath killing all life on earth as you do of global warming killing all life on earth

it won't happen

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Looking at Europe, especially Prague, I can't imagine that someone could NOT believe in Global Warming and the horrors it can cause.

well, a lot of people here disagree with you

and I know a lot of people elsewhere who do also

the environment is in trouble, but not from global warming

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

well, a lot of people here disagree with you

But a lot of scientists (in fact nearly all) don't. And I think I'll listen to them over you people, thank you very much .

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

well, a lot of people here disagree with you

But a lot of scientists (in fact nearly all) don't. And I think I'll listen to them over you people, thank you very much .

Jon's a scientist.

[Wraith]

--"Which is it?"

Well, in my opinion it's that we not only can't tell that there's human caused warming, we can't even be sure there's a warming trend yet.

However... I do like to take peoples arguments and use them against them. That's why I pointed out that even accepting all the IPCC assumptions Kyoto is a worthless treaty.

--"After all, not even the most alarmist eco-nut predicted that the Ross ice shelf would collapse. Yet it has."

That's because alarmist eco-nuts are morons. They didn't realize it was natural occurance, something that has to happen every once in a while. Otherwise they probalby would have, just so they could go "I told you so" later.

--"If this is the case then the sooner we do something the better. Cost is irrelevent."

Did you not read my earlier post? Cost is never irrelevant.

--"then it is only prudent to rely on the best evidence available"

But it isn't the best evidence available. I encourage you to read the IPCC report. The actual report, not the summary. The press and the IPCC have been working from the summary. The original scientists who wrote the report are not part of the IPCC, which is a political body. They have so distorted the actual report that several of the original scientists have been complaining publicly. The IPCC is taking the worst case scenarios, and have omitted all the cautionary language of the original report. And even the people who wrote the report admit that their models are extremely imprecise.

--"When you are not certain of a course of action, you should generally try to move in the direction of Goodness and away from Badness."

Why should we move away from bad-ass-ness? Bad-asses are cool.

Oh, wait...

Thank you for ignoring all my important points, by the way. I was almost positive you were nothing but a troll, and now I'm certain of it.

Wraith
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

[Vanguard]

Jon Miller:

also have you heard of evolution?, do you have any idea of the scale involved, and what life would do once humans died off?

Well. It is hard to argue with this sort of long term view. I'm sure that whatever species eventually replaces Man on the hellish greenhouse Earth of the future will appreciate the fact that we didn't sign the Kyoto accord. Touche.

Wraith:

That's because alarmist eco-nuts are morons. They didn't realize it was natural occurance, something that has to happen every once in a while. Otherwise they probalby would have, just so they could go "I told you so" later

How exactly do you know it is a natural occurance? Did you read it in the National Review? Or some other equally scientific publication?

First you state that science doesn't even know if a warming trend is going on and that all the models are imprecise. But then you turn around and state categorically that the unprecedented collapse of one of the largest ice shelfs in the world is a "natural occurance".

But if the models are so imprecise, then how do you know it is a natural occurance? Are there any rules to this game or do you just believe whatever you find convenient at the moment?

Did you not read my earlier post? Cost is never irrelevant.

If global warming due to CO2 emissions is going on, then we have to try to stop it, whatever the cost. We cannot experiment on the entire planet trusting in the hope that everything will turn out alright.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Jon Miller:

Well. It is hard to argue with this sort of long term view. I'm sure that whatever species eventually replaces Man on the hellish greenhouse Earth of the future will appreciate the fact that we didn't sign the Kyoto accord. Touche.

actually according to evolution, I think they would find it paradise

(note, I am not for polluting with great ammounts of CO2, it is just that I do not think that it is that dangerous and I think that we have more important things to expend effort on)

Jon Miller

[CyberGnu]

wraith, still at it I see? I have the greatest respect of your debating skills. You are very good. But all the rhetorics in the world still doesn;t change the fundamental problem of your position: The VAST majority of athosperic and geological scientists agree that global warming is real and will cause widespread damage.

In a simple search of the phrase 'global warming' on Science homepage covering only artiles from the year 2002, one gets 48 hits. Not one single one of those articles dispute the reality of global warming. Discounting the articles discussing changes in US policy or the recent chair of the IPCC, one if left with about 35 articles. ~25 of those assumes global warming to be true, while the remaining articles produce new data supporting the reality of global warming.

Now, last time I brought this up you defended your view with 'Science is biased'. Of course, it is very easy to say so when you don't understand the scientific arguments from either side, while ideologially have decided that one side is right... The real question is, however, are there scientists who think that Science is biased? I have yet to meet one. Or even hear of one. You know of any?

[CyberGnu]

Jon, what do you base your idea that raising the worlds CO2 levels wouldn't be dangerous on?

Again, I refer to the worlds scientific consensus. The possible effects of global warming are many and diverse, but one opinion is shared: disturbing an equilibrium brings short term catastropic effects. Short term in geological terms means hundreds of years, humans are frail organisms.

[The Mad Monk]

What if global warming is happening, and is being coused by the ongoing solar maximum?

I understand that once you average out the results, it is clear that solar emissions have been increasing since the Maunder Minimum of the late 1600s - early 1700s.

[Wraith]

--"Did you read it in the National Review? Or some other equally scientific publication?"

Quoted from Nature, IIRC.

It's quite simple to understand, really. Any ice shelf over water will break up at some point. Water is not a stable base. Temperature differences, currents, tidal motion, sooner or later something's going to give.

--"First you state that science doesn't even know if a warming trend is going on"

We don't. We only have reasonable accurate measurements since the satellites were launched, and a couple decades of measurements are not enough to state categorically that there is a warming trend at all, much less assign causation to humans.

--"and that all the models are imprecise"

They are, and are acknowledged as such. The weather is a complex, chaotic system. None of the computer models have accounted for everything that affects the climate, and we're finding out new factors all the time. The ones used for the IPCC report don't, IIRC, factor in the heat reflected/absorbed by clouds or the changing level of solar emissions, just for starters.

--"But if the models are so imprecise, then how do you know it is a natural occurance?"

See above. It's a simple structural problem. One end of the ice shelf, IIRC, is anchored, the rest isn't. The part that's anchored isn't moving, the rest is trying to. Plenty of stress on the rest of the body (and heck, even if neither end is anchored there's going to be stress from different currents, thicknesses of ice, and so on). Flexing a fairly rigid material over and over will break it.

--"Are there any rules to this game or do you just believe whatever you find convenient at the moment?"

You might want to address this question yourself. My rules are quite simple. Reports not based on actual science are ignored or lambasted. When the NY Times goes on about water at the North Pole, I ignore them (until they quietly print a retraction, and which point I can point and laugh at all the "journalists" still referencing the original story).

--"If global warming due to CO2 emissions is going on, then we have to try to stop it, whatever the cost."

So you didn't bother to read my first post in this thread.

In any case, why the focus on CO2? If you knew anything about global warming, you'd know that CO2 isn't even the main factor. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. CO2 isn't even the main anthropogenic greenhouse gas, methane is.

CO2 also serves a very important function. It's called plant food.

It's also rather amusing that CFCs seem to be an anti-warming gas...

--"Not one single one of those articles dispute the reality of global warming."

If you've said "still at it" then you know my opinion of the media, including most of the so-called science magazines, covering the issue. I have presented counters before, and they get ignored, even when they're MIT professors on government panels.

Wraith
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Here

http://www.meto.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/carbon_cycle/index.html

which is one of the UK projects the increase predicted is around 3 degrees -edit: celsius- world wide.

here is the prediction link

http://www.meto.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html

Take a look.

* and to add global temperature was only 5 celzius less on average during the last Ice Age...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

US Government one

http://ww2.wrh.noaa.gov/climate_info/Global_Warming.htm

Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.6-1.2°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred within the last 15 years. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Globally, sea level has risen 4-10 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.


Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1.6-6.3°F by 2100, with significant regional vaariation.

any questions?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

well, a lot of people here disagree with you

But a lot of scientists (in fact nearly all) don't. And I think I'll listen to them over you people, thank you very much .

Yeh so a bunch of lefty scientists with their budget's on the line agree. So What?

Look here's the logic.

1. I'm a scientist and I need money to live and do my research.
2. The government supplies grants to scientists to do research etc.
3. The government can be forced into doing something if enough people can be hoodwinked into pressuring them to.
4. The scientists (the false ones) issue press statements of one disaster after another due to (insert your own pet disaster cause here).
5. The people become concerned and force the governments to act.
6. The government does not have enough information to act. (How do they know that - from the scientists that advise them) So they decide to fund more research.
7. The scientists are happy and say they will need at least 20 years to prove the issue one way or another.

The only disaster I see is for Science. It is being belittled and perverted to make some unscrupulous scientists a buck.