Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Solly]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Man's involvement: much less understood, I think, still the best theory to date.

To that I would ask - what aspect of man's involvement?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ned
I never before (at least that I can recall) said anything that could remotely be construed as positive about a Socialist, but I admit my heart was warmed when I read that bit about the renowed French geophysicist and Socialit Party member changing his views.

Listen, I don't know who is right on this issue. But we have NEVER had a serious public discussion of the issue. We need one.

Have you been living under a rock for the past decades?
We are in the middle of the debate, please read the various research.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Me too.

Global Warming is not a settled debate, so says a US Senate report.

It isn't. In the Senate

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
KH, is your position on GW based on knowledge or is it based on belief?

What position on global warming? I haven't asserted one.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Impaler, I could assert the following and YOU refute it.

Increase in CO2 causes and increase in vegetation that lowers temperatures.

With pleasure, studies do show that incressed CO2 can result in incressed vegitation growth under certain conditions. Naimly in situations ware carbon is the limiting factor on growth, so example in a dry climate ware water is the limiting factor theirs is no increse results. Your basic premise is that this will remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and the problem will be self correcting (if its not then whats your point?). I grant you their are actualy several mechanisms that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, plant growth being just one of them. One of the biggest removers of CO2 is the Ocean which absorbs a huge proportion of the CO2 being released, this makes the ocean more acidic by the way. Something like half of what we emit is absorbed in this way. The critical question is do all these things remove CO2 as fast as we add it to the atmosphere. Clearly they do not as levels have been rising ever cince the Industrial revolution. If CO2 emishions were to remain constant for some long period of time its concivable the absorbtion would eventualy reach equilibrium and CO2 levels would stop rising. Of corse at that point were probably more then double the current concentration and equilibrium temperature is considerably higher.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Climate models have no predictive skill.

That is a baldfaced lie.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Odin


That is a baldfaced lie.

Show me where forecasts have been made and subsequently shown to be significantly better than basic techniques.

(Hint: I said forecast)

Maybe we are at the crux of the issue for you?

[Odin]

I want to Denialists to show me a PEER REVIEWED paper done in the last 5 years denying Anthropogenic GW.

In An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore talks about picking out 900-something peer-reviewed articles on the topic at random and ALL of them accepted that GW was caused by humans. The debate is totally an invention of professional sophists hired by Big Oil and Big Coal to confuse the public.

[Solly]

I wonder when Odin'll discover Big Renewables

I'll leave my challenge there for you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Odin
That is a baldfaced lie.

So when is the global cooling predicted in the 70's supposed to happen?

[Solly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So when is the global cooling predicted in the 70's supposed to happen?

Don't you know Dinodoc, the supercomputer models have improved since then!

[Odin]

Show me where forecasts have been made

I remember reading that when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the early 90's scientists forcasted very accurately the cooling that resulted from the eruption.

[Ned]

Originally posted by germanos

Listen, I don't know who is right on this issue. But we have NEVER had a serious public discussion of the issue. We need one.

Have you been living under a rock for the past decades?
We are in the middle of the debate, please read the various research.

The debate, from my observation, is primarily about remedies. We seemed to have jumped over a couple of steps, such as,

1) Is the world, in fact, getting steadily warmer? (We have periods when it gets warmer and periods when it gets colder, even over the last few decades);

2) If the world is getting steadily warmer (and there seems to be no evidence that it is), what are the effects, both positive and negative. All we hear is a chorus from the advocacy groups that any change is bad, citing some of the negative projections and totally ignoring any positives.

3) What can we do to moderate either the causes or the negative effects, if necessary. We actaully might want to do nothing about the root causes, as warming may have more positives than negatives, such as more food production and better climate in the Northern part of the world where the bulk of the land is now uninhabitable due to cold. If the positives grossly outweigh the negatives, global warming would be a good thing for humanity, not a bad thing. Those adversely affected could be helped, if necessary. But I suspect that change would be so gradual that this would be totally unnecessary.

The Europeans seem half mad in their fears of a new Ice Age. They seem to ignore history, even recent history, when the world was quite warmer than it is now but there was no Ice Age in Europe. When the world was warmer in the middle ages, the Vikings dominated Europe due to good climate in the North. Warmer generally means a better climate in the North.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What position on global warming? I haven't asserted one.

Sure you have. When you laugh at skeptics, your position seems clear.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]


With pleasure, studies do show that incressed CO2 can result in incressed vegitation growth under certain conditions. Naimly in situations ware carbon is the limiting factor on growth, so example in a dry climate ware water is the limiting factor theirs is no increse results. Your basic premise is that this will remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and the problem will be self correcting (if its not then whats your point?). I grant you their are actualy several mechanisms that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, plant growth being just one of them. One of the biggest removers of CO2 is the Ocean which absorbs a huge proportion of the CO2 being released, this makes the ocean more acidic by the way. Something like half of what we emit is absorbed in this way. The critical question is do all these things remove CO2 as fast as we add it to the atmosphere. Clearly they do not as levels have been rising ever cince the Industrial revolution. If CO2 emishions were to remain constant for some long period of time its concivable the absorbtion would eventualy reach equilibrium and CO2 levels would stop rising. Of corse at that point were probably more then double the current concentration and equilibrium temperature is considerably higher.

Good point about the limiting factors.

No, I was not so much concerned about the carbon sink factors increasing with vegetation, I was concerned by the vegetation itself. The more it covers the Earth, the longer it covers the Earth in terms of growing season, etc., the cooler the Earth is. The vegetation itself cools the Earth.

Now imagine if computer models had originally been built demonstrating how more vegetation would cool the Earth. We would be afraid that CO2 would cause a new Ice Age, etc., etc., etc.

But this is just one factor as to why increases in CO2, per se, both heat the atmoshere by trapping infrared and cool the earth by increasing vegetation that absorbs sunlight.

We really do not understand what warms the Earth and what cools it other than the Sun, events like volcanoes and our orbital variations that effect where the Suns rays fall. Why did the world get dramatically warmer in the early middle ages. Why did it get dramatically colder beginning in the 1300's? Why did it get dramatically warmer again beginning in the 1850's? Are we in some sort of "oscillation?"

And why do folks, like Gore, give us the "hockey stick," which is patently false, to suggest that the current warming is "new."