Global Warming no consenses

[Rand]

I wonder about motivation. What would motivate a scientist or many scientists to run around like Chicken Little saying "The sky is falling" or "The earth is warming"??? What do they get out of it? It can't be attention. They are a big crowd. It isn't wealth or fame for the same reason.

It's pretty clear what motivates oil companies, auto companies, coal plants etc. MONEY!

As to the lack of proof. What proof do the anti-global warming people have that we are NOT causing the earth to warm?

My personal opinion is that the real problem we face is over population. In 100 years the human population has grown from 1 billion to 7 billion. We cannot keep growing our population and consuming resources at that rate. If we don't limit our population then I am afraid Mother Nature will and she can be pretty nasty. Be it drought, horrible storms, plague or something nobody has ever thought of I don't want to be here when it happens.

[eccentrictinkerer]

I wonder about motivation. What would motivate a scientist or many scientists to run around like Chicken Little saying "The sky is falling" or "The earth is warming"??? What do they get out of it? It can't be attention. They are a big crowd. It isn't wealth or fame for the same reason.

IMO, if you are a scientist who adheres to the religion of the global alarmists and Rev. Gore, you can rest assured that you will get all the grant money you need until you retire. This has been proven.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-7dc37ec39adf

[Rand]

Hiya eccentric one.

I didn't see anything in the article you posted that supported your assertion. I did notice that the article was written by Marc Morano.

A quick google of him turned up this:


Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine

-------------------------------------------
Maybe the scientists who are making such a stink about global warming are doing so because they truly believe we are screwing up our world in a terrible way and nobody is paying attention. If you were certain that your neighbor was about to make a terrible mistake wouldn't you feel obligated to warn him? I think that's what they are doing in a more global sense. Is it possible that they are wrong? Of course. Anything is possible which means that it's also possible they are right.

If they are wrong but they convince the majority of people and the government they are right what's the worst that will happen? More expensive but cleaner energy? Walking or riding a bike instead of taking a car?

If they are right and we do nothing we are gonna be really really sorry. Well probably not us. Our grandchildren and their children.

[eccentrictinkerer]

Hiya eccentric one.

I didn't see anything in the article you posted that supported your assertion. I did notice that the article was written by Marc Morano.

A quick google of him turned up this:


Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine...........

Glad you pointed all that out. He's probably a Commie and a pedophile, too.

In any event, I used the wrong bookmark. I should have used the lollowing:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

I am concerned for my children and my five grandchildren. I believe that we humans must be good stewards of the gifts we are given.

I have been interested in saving energy and reducing pollutants for over 35 years. My 92 year-old home has been, and continues to be, tuned up for minimum energy consumption. My heat bill, as a result, is 60% of my neighbor's with similar homes. I have replaced half my light bulbs with CFL's (where it makes sense), My workshop/garage is solar-heated, as is my small swimming pool and have been for 15 years.

My limousine-liberal neighbors (I'm the only Republican in the neighborhood, but I can fix anything, so they let me stay ) are all Global Alarmists, but do virtually nothing to help the cause. Their BMW's and Land Rovers sit idling in the driveway every morning, warming up for the 3 mile drive to the office or the mall.

If I sound defensive, it's because I am. I'm a retired engineer and feel that I have a good grasp of science. Rev. Gore has whipped up a frenzy to endear himself to naive people and line his own pockets, IMHO.

Is this thread getting too political?

[JR]

Is this thread getting too political?

Yes, when you use words like Republican and limousine-liberal, it is.

It sounds to me like you've put a lot of thought into this subject and have some good insight as to what's what. I'd be happy to hear the arguments, but without the charactarizations please.

JR

[JimD]

One of the key reasons to question the theory of global warming is the reaction of the supporters when a question is raised. Name calling is not scientific. The only data I have seen supporting the theory is antidotal (sp?). It has been warmer in this location so therefore the whole earth is warmer. Ice is melting here so it must be melting everywhere and it is melting more than I've seen it so it must be more than it ever has been before. Many observations are valid but the causal link is not proven by the data. The cycling graph that is often used does not tell the same story if you expand the time scale. When the proponents are politicians, that to me is another warning sign.

I also subscribe the good steward theory. I think we need to be more prudent about how we use resources but I do not think there is a proven link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. I think we should work on ways to generate less carbon dioxide but just because it is better stewardship of the earth resources, not because I think the earth is about to become inhabitable.

Jim

[Slik Geek]

I wonder about motivation. What would motivate a scientist or many scientists to run around like Chicken Little saying "The sky is falling" or "The earth is warming"??? What do they get out of it? It can't be attention. They are a big crowd. It isn't wealth or fame for the same reason.

Apparently you haven't hung around scientists. I have. They thrive on attention. Attention gets them noticed. Getting noticed gets pet projects funded. Yes, they are human. Money motivates them. When they have money, they can pursue their science interests.

As to the lack of proof. What proof do the anti-global warming people have that we are NOT causing the earth to warm?

Temperature cycles are clear in the evidence of history - before mankind allegedly had acquired such a powerful influence over the earth. And the world survived! Those who want us to spend billions attempting to attempt to influence climate have the burden of proof on them.

[Slik Geek]

It's pretty clear what motivates oil companies, auto companies, coal plants etc.

Why the focus on carbon dioxide production? Why don't the people who are concerned about mankind causing global warming focus on the most significant "greenhouse gas", instead of a much lesser one (carbon dioxide)?

Water vapor is by far the most significant "greenhouse gas", according to the same scientists who tell us that man is causing global warming. What is their motivation to attack carbon dioxide?

[gjat]

Hiya eccentric one.
If they are wrong but they convince the majority of people and the government they are right what's the worst that will happen? More expensive but cleaner energy? Walking or riding a bike instead of taking a car?

If they are right and we do nothing we are gonna be really really sorry. Well probably not us. Our grandchildren and their children.

What's the worst that can happen? How about increased food prices because of excessive resources that go towards 'alternative fuels', not because they are more efficient, but strickly because of 'psuedo-science'. Did you know that grain prices have incresed more than 60% because of the demands for corn for ethonal? Just as we don't have unlimited resources of oil, we don't have unlimited resources for farming. One link for consideration: http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/11/smbu...=magazines_fsb

Who suffers the most with higher global food prices. Certainly not Americans who have higher incomes compared with global economies. It will be the poorest of the poor in the world who will be priced out of the grocery store because 'experts' push alternative fuels without due consideration for unanticipated effects.

Changing energy sources can be good, but thorough "objective" consideration and thought is required about unanticipated consequences. Google DDT and do a little reading about how erroneous science, driven by media hype, can make a small problem that needs attention into a world wide crisis that has (and still is) causing the death of hundreds of thousands. (The short story is, DDT is not/was not the enviromental disaster it was portrayed as. It's use should have been better controlled, not eliminated. It didn't have the effects that 'consensus' believed. As a result, hundreds of thousands people died from insenct borne diseases so eagle eggs wouldn't be thin (which again, wasn't caused by DDT).)

[LinuxRandal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp


Science, common sense, etc..... can all be affected by lack of knowledge AND greed.

[jseklund]

Ahhh, global warming. The argument my girlfriend and I have quite often. I believe that there IS a lack of data for global warming being caused by humans. Honestly, I've watched Gore's movie, and he lacks any kind of statistical/analytical skill if you ask me. He obviously avoids raw data, instead showing graphs (which can imply greater change than the reality). I've yet to have anyone show me clear data for global warming. If you have it, I would LOVE to see it. Show me the actual temperature data? Show me the ACTUAL CO2 data? Even with this, you can only prove a correlation, but at least that would be something.

Even Al Gore states that over the last century CO2 emmissions have been slowly rising. This, within the same video that he talks about how he passed laws to curb carbon emissions. If we've passed such laws, and it is our fault...what would the LOGICAL conclusion be? Obviously- if it's our fault and we change, then the outcome should change. His manipulated data does not suggest this though.

Also, please think about when we had the GREATEST CO2 emissions. It's not now. It's when we had coal powered factories SPEWING gas into the atmosphere. New industry is by far the WORST polluter out there. Not advanced industry. But despite our advances, still no drop in temps or CO2.

If they are wrong but they convince the majority of people and the government they are right what's the worst that will happen? More expensive but cleaner energy? Walking or riding a bike instead of taking a car?

That in itself should be the real problem that concerns you. What if they ARE wrong? What if we spend all this time and money trying to curb carbon emissions, and blaming ourselves, and they are wrong? What if the world is just changing, its beyond our control, and we waste all of our precious resources (time, money, energy) chasing their half-thought-thru ideas? Then one day, the world changes drastically and we're left holding the bag. I'm all for better energy sources- they make sense with or without global warming. Chasing this path religiously (it is a religion), is a mistake.

I think a large part of the problem is, as a society, we've become lulled into this idea of security. Get a safe job, get social security, buy a security system. Well, the world is out of our hands- even with the technology and powers we HAVE acquired. This scares people- "You mean, we're not truly safe?" It's so hard for people to accept that the world could change and there's little we can do about it, they will cling to anything. It HAS to be our fault. We're in charge after all.

Wonder what they'll say if the sun goes super nova?

[jackellis]

Chasing this path religiously (it is a religion), is a mistake.

To your point...

I work in the energy industry. Last week, I saw some statistics that indicate about 1/8th of all carbon emissions in California are linked to coal-fired power that's produced elsewhere and imported. The local utility regulator asked, "What's the best way to reduce carbon emissions?" Obvious answer: stop importing all that coal-fired power. Having seen the dirty exhaust plumes from some of those coal-fired plants and how they spoil some spectacular views in New Mexico, I'm all for it.

However, at the same time the state wants to push plug-in electric vehicles, which require...electricity from power plants that would either be gas-fired, in which case we need to build a couple of LNG terminals, or they'd have to be nuclear plants. Wind and solar can make contributions, but they require too much land and have environmental impacts of their own.

I'm hoping some smart biologists can develop a form of algae that grows fast and converts sunlight and CO2 from the atmosphere into some form of biofuel. Solves the transportation fuel problem and pulls CO2 from the air at the same time. If I knew how to do this, I'd be all over it right now.

It's going to be interesting watching how this plays out.

[Rand]

Thanks LinuxRandal. I love Penn and Teller. Their show on BS is classic.
The clip you posted reminded me of an episode of the Man Show where they got people to sign a petition to end women's suffrage. I couldn't find that episode but I did find this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEqWgMsEA_8

Okay, I'm done playing Devil's advocate here.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Peace and Prosperity to all!!!

[WestofLongBeach]

News release: Large list of Scientists dispute man-caused global warming!
Just more evidence on the side of there are many in the science field that do not think global warming is caused by man.

Black wallnut,

I saw this a couple of weeks ago but didn't have time then to follow the link. You know, do you, that it's Senator Inhofe's site?

The corporate news org. CBS News said:

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all broadly agree on this basic point: Temperatures are rising, at least in part as a result of human greenhouse-gas emissions.

And,

a recently released report from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, produced by some 300 scientists working under the auspices of the Arctic Council (an intergovernmental group that includes the United States). The report shows that human-caused climate change has already had a pronounced effect in the Arctic region, where average temperatures have shot up "at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades." The result? Ongoing impacts such as melting glaciers and sea ice.

Somebody here mentioned the old myth that in the 70's climate scientists all thought that an ice age was imminent.

The science was not well advanced in the 70's, and in any event, nobody thought it was a reliable prediction in the short term. It was actually dealing with time frames of 20,000 years. In that scale, it is probably near accurate enough.

Estimates from tide gauges indicate that sea level has changed at the rate of 1.8 to 2.4 mm/yr over the last century. Satellite altimeter estimates currently show a global sea level change of 2.8+/- 0.4 mm/yr over the last 12 years. Due to the different methodologies involved, a direct comparison of the two values is not straightforward, but the satellite results provide absolutely no support for Inhofe's contention that "there is a total absence of any recent acceleration in sea level rise".

The worst that could happen? In the short term, a great deal of disruption. In the long term, the same disruption or worse, if we do nothing. If we take action, we will get energy efficiency and cutting off of Middle East oil, which we should do in any case. IMHO.

[gjat]

The worst that can happen is "a great deal of disruption"? Rising food prices caused by market demands for ethanol fuel is already causing India and African nations that import food to scale back on purchases. Starving to death because media hysteria fueled by political agendas and 'psuedo-science' is more than a great deal of disruption.

The UN is already on record for lying about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. They justified their lies in order 'increase public attention and funding' to the problem. Now it's shown that the UN hid and misdirected data from effective programs in order to increase overall funding that ended up not being spent on the truely effective actions.

The boy who called 'wolf' is an old lesson that needs to be learned. He thought the worst that can happen is the people come out and are a little too attentive to a potential problem. Instead, the people got tired of the lies and exagerations, and failed to act when they were trueley needed.