Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Berzerker


You got more than 5, go...

CO2 is known to trap heat in the earth and cause a greenhouse effect, we can prove this, it is just a fact. This would not be a problem if we did not have too much CO2.

We can drill ice cores and use other tests to tell what the global temperature was at a given time period. These tests are reliable but too complicated to easily explain(if they want more detail I give it-no one ever asks though).

Keep in mind these are the same people who accept the talking heads of the media as gospel, so they rarely probe, though to be honest, I wish they did.

The atmosphere itself and also it’s contents and information about it gets frozen in the ice at the poles as new layers of ice accumulate over the old, for year after year after year. With very careful drilling, we can drill down and get samples of the ice from a given time period, by drilling to a certain depth. From that ice, we can tell about the contents of the atmosphere.

There is a correlation between some periods of global increase in temperature and an increase in carbon in the atmosphere.

There is other evidence, but this is the strongest and also, the simplest to explain.

That’s my 5 minute spiel, summed up.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Berzerker
On the same day Al Gore received his share of the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change — one of his main arguments is being challenged by a scientific fact.

Gore has said that the northern polar ice cap could be completely gone in as little as seven years. But Brazil's MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.

And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316377,00.html

A says the sky is blue for X, Y and Z reasons, which have no relation to each out.

It turns out Z is not true.

Then, the media makes a gap and says “Well if Z is true, X and Y must not be true either!”

Someone needs to write a book on the sorts of deceptive practices the media engages in, in regards to global warming.

Even if one thing Al Gore said is not true, that does not mean other things he said is not true, it CERTAINLY does not mean other things, other people said, are untrue.

The media treats our climate crisis like it is a credibility issue. It is not. It is not about who said what, but the science, which is ignored.


Give me a minute to read the article, i'll respond to see if it is factual or not.

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by Vesayen

CO2 is known to trap heat in the earth and cause a greenhouse effect, we can prove this, it is just a fact. This would not be a problem if we did not have too much CO2.

But we dont have much CO2... And while on paper this looks convincing it fails to consider what happens as a result. The Earth has all sorts of balances and counterbalances. For example, temps go up, evaporation increases and sea levels can actually lower as water is transported into the hydro-cycle, including ice sheets. From 1900-1940 the world warmed and sea levels dropped, then from 1940-1970 sea levels rose as the world cooled. Evaporation rates compared to melting continental ice would seem to be valuable information.

We can drill ice cores and use other tests to tell what the global temperature was at a given time period. These tests are reliable but too complicated to easily explain(if they want more detail I give it-no one ever asks though).

I'm very familiar with the ice cores, and they do show that climate was much more chaotic (and dangerous) during ice advances. And according to the data, the world has been warmer before industrialization. The Milankovich Cycles (and other orbital cycles) drive our ice ages, and we'll be fortunate to understand pollution enough in the future to minimize the negative effects of an ice advance that will surely come as the Earth's tilt lessens.

The atmosphere itself and also it’s contents and information about it gets frozen in the ice at the poles as new layers of ice accumulate over the old, for year after year after year. With very careful drilling, we can drill down and get samples of the ice from a given time period, by drilling to a certain depth. From that ice, we can tell about the contents of the atmosphere.

And the ice sheets are deserts, more evaporation means more snow dropping on ice sheets. Obviously there are limits, a really warm world might be completely de-iced except for Antarctica where ice doesn't melt but is pushed into the oceans.

There is a correlation between some periods of global increase in temperature and an increase in carbon in the atmosphere.

A warmer world has more life... Carbon increases and carbon is trapped more by the life flourishing under a warmer climate. Studying climate is one thing, clamping down on production etc aint gonna do anything unless we're willing to go to war to stop the 3rd world from industrializing. Better to just develop better technologies so the 3rd world doesn't have to make our mistakes.

[Blake]

A warmer world has more life... Carbon increases and carbon is trapped more by the life flourishing under a warmer climate.

What a beautiful theory. There's only one problem. There's a cancerous plague of mammels on earth which kills off forest and such a lot quicker than it can grow.

[Cort Haus]

I don't know about the media that Vesayen sees, but the one in my country predominantly presents the viewpoint that humans are responsible for global warming, and the alternative viewpoint is considered a heresy.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I don't know about the media that Vesayen sees, but the one in my country predominantly presents the viewpoint that humans are responsible for global warming, and the alternative viewpoint is considered a heresy.

I guess Vesayen lives in the States. Things might be different there.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Berzerker
On the same day Al Gore received his share of the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change — one of his main arguments is being challenged by a scientific fact.

Gore has said that the northern polar ice cap could be completely gone in as little as seven years. But Brazil's MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.

And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316377,00.html

If FOX says so!

Then we can completely forget that the NW-passage has become completely ice-free for the first time, and the NSIDC data showing a considerable retreat of polar ice shelf, expecting an ice-free ocean by 2030.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/28/climatechange.internationalnews

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/28/climatechange.internationalnews

If teh Guardian says so.

[Patroklos]

If FOX says so!

Really? I thought "Brazil's MetSul Weather Center" said so.

Oh those silly brown people, pretending they know how to do science

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
A warmer world has more life... Carbon increases and carbon is trapped more by the life flourishing under a warmer climate. Studying climate is one thing, clamping down on production etc aint gonna do anything unless we're willing to go to war to stop the 3rd world from industrializing. Better to just develop better technologies so the 3rd world doesn't have to make our mistakes.

I agree

(1) Most of the evidence is pointing out to the direction that global warming will increase, not decrease, the overall habitability of our planet.

(2) The only thing what voluntarily decreased production or penalties for increased carbon dioxide emissions for western countries will do is increase production and cheapen the use (we've seen this on coal already, less demand = relatively cheaper price) of fossil fuels for third world countries.

Thus, with the options of going to Kyoto or doing nothing, doing nothing is a vastly better alternative.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
On the same day Al Gore received his share of the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change — one of his main arguments is being challenged by a scientific fact.

Gore has said that the northern polar ice cap could be completely gone in as little as seven years. But Brazil's MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.

And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316377,00.html

That looks like an incredibly stupid and hysterical thing to say. Can you find the original source for that? Or could it be that FOX news just, you know, made it up?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by VJ


That looks like an incredibly stupid and hysterical thing to say. Can you find the original source for that? Or could it be that FOX news just, you know, made it up?

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lect_2007c.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is actual quote, btw:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Gore is saying 7 years is according to a US Navy study.

[BeBMan]

So judging from this thread everyone can either believe the pro or the con GW side, incl. shouting at the other side for getting it wrong, proving it by articles that support the side one has chosen to believe? Sounds like basic poly stuff

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by BeBro
So judging from this thread everyone can either believe the pro or the con GW side, incl. shouting at the other side for getting it wrong, proving it by articles that support the side one has chosen to believe? Sounds like basic poly stuff

Yup

MetSul Special Report to ICECAP: Al Gore's Inconvenient Mistake

http://www.metsul.com/secoes/visualiza.php?cod_subsecao=33&cod_texto=947