"But there is no Global Warming....."

[STGRule]

I just spent the day WATERING my plants to keep them from dying. :shocked: I cleaned out another vegetable box. The zucchini had blossoms on it still but we're done with those. Pulled up the watermelon and brought in a baseball sized one. It was ripe and delicious. Personal watermelons, whoda thunk it. I left the peppers as they are covered in fruit and still blooming. The Juliet tomatoes are going strong. AND I have cucumbers and blossoms there too. Have I had some kind of brain anomaly and I only just think it is the end of October?

We've been getting below freezing temperatures at night but the days are more like early October.
Garden is dead.

[skein]

The actual record for today was set in 1987 at 92 degrees. There were probably people out in the old zucchini patch with machetes trying to keep the dang things at bay.

Skein

[ 10-26-2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: skein ]

[1pump]

Awesome day today! Too bad I had to waste it on work. :depressed:

[Silver Hilton]

Had to take a shotgun to a marauding zucchini this afternoon. Thank god for the second amendment!

I am deeply afraid that paybacks are going to be a beach. This summer was too nice.

[Mad Mikey]

Winter is gonna hit like a ton of bricks and we will be diving for our rain jackets and snoeshoes. The global warming crowd will be firing up their heaters complaining about the cold.......... :grin: :tongue:
But I am digging the weather...

[ 10-26-2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Mad Mikey ]

[happybrew]

Today I picked MORE tomatoes. Thank goodness the slugs have started to eat some of them, because we have way too many. The leaves are dying, but the tomatoes keep a-coming. The peppers are still producing. We potted a few of the plants and took them indoors 'cause we like peppers. I have one jalepeno plant that's three years old and getting better every year It puts out until December if we keep it indoors. I noticed new cucumbers on the plants that didn't die when the weather got cold. And I thought the raspberries were done, but no... I picked some new ones today. The zucchini's are long gone. My kids are grateful for that. We're gonna have to try watermelon next year. I like that personal watermelon idea.

Yep, must be global warming, but I'm not complaining. I kind of like it.

happybrew

[pdxkevin]

I thought it was Bush's fault? No wait it's El Nino... or Enron... or was it... those evil taxpayers who don't want another tax increase! Yeah, that's it those evil, greedy people who work for a living and are cold hearted as to actually want to take some of our hard taxed money they worked for home - it's their greed that caused this. Don't they care for the children?

Get over it. temps swing both ways and there is no conclusive proof of the theory of global warming. It is just a theory. The planet has always had temp swings. None have been at a constant rate of change either. Does anyone remember talking about how we were headed to the next ice age back in the 70's. I remember our teacher's stressing how its the humans fault we were headed to the next ice age.

[foxer]

Yep, I agree with Kevin. I have also heard that the "hole" in the ozone layer is getting smaller.

[BrionLutz]

PDXKevin,

The "Oregon Institute" petition has been pretty well debunked.

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

You've quoted Rev. Moon's "Washington Times" and "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" a strange little "research institute" in Cave Junction Oregon that doesn't do any real R&D but provides "analysis" with a fringe point of view. Their classic ****** is "Nuclear War Survival Techniques".

I've provided you with National Academy of Science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

IPCC is the world's scientific body put together to investigate the Global Warming science as it started to come out.

They have been doing in depth analysis for close to 20 years and as noted, the science is inescapable.

Poor Bush Jr got bushwhacked when, after making a campaign promise to cut CO2 in the US, he tried to back out of it. He had NAS do a study, hoping for some equivocal answer instead NAS as unequivocal.

There is significant Global Warming and there is irrefutable scientific evidence that man made contribution to it is significant.

Brion

[Thumper]

There are piles and piles of studies on both sides of the question, and no consensus, despite the source of all knowledge --- our Ifish friend Brion. Assuming that there might be some global warming going on --- So what?

Global warming and cooling has gone on for billions of years. Real warming and cooling, not just a few degrees or fractions of a degree. When significant global warming and cooling occurs, some areas of the earth suffer, some thrive. For every "loser" area of the earth, there is a "winner".

Hardly worth getting our collective panties in a bunch.

[DanS]

Yeah.......hardly. Who cares if the earth becomes inhospitable to humans?

The climate changes of the last billion years don't concern us nearly as much as the changes happening today, now do they Thump?

[skahorse]

Dan,
I think Thumper's point was regardless of what we do, if the earth is going to warm up, it's going to warm up. If the humans are the "losers" in the situation, there's nothing we can do about it. :shocked:

--Skahorse

[DanS]

If we can delay or lessen the amount the earth warms up, then shouldn't we?

[happybrew]

If global warming means that the zucchini patch produces until December, then my kids think we should definitely put a stop to it.

happybrew

[OceanBlue]

Can I get in trouble for saying that global warming wouldn't even be considered an issue if some people (who shall remain nameless) kept their jaws shut?

Enjoy those "indian summer" harvests! We're about to get chilly!

...SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PORTLAND OR 200 PM PST MON OCT 27 2003
... TURNING MUCH COLDER THIS WEEK WITH LOWERING SNOW LEVELS IN THE MOUNTAINS IN SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON AND NORTHWEST OREGON...

A SERIES OF WEATHER SYSTEMS DROPPING SOUTH OUT OF THE GULF OF ALASKA WILL BRING THE COLDEST AIR OF THIS FALL TO SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON AND NORTHWEST OREGON THIS WEEK. SNOW LEVELS ARE EXPECTED TO FALL TO WELL BELOW THE CASCADE PASSES WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY. FROST WILL BE POSSIBLE AT LOWER ELEVATIONS LATE IN THE WEEK.

SNOW LEVELS ARE EXPECTED TO DROP TO NEAR THE CASCADE PASS ELEVATIONS TUESDAY NIGHT... TO NEAR 3000 FEET WEDNESDAY... AND TO NEAR 2000 FEET ON THURSDAY. THIS ALLOW SOME SNOW TO FALL IN THE HIGHER ELEVATIONS OF THE COAST RANGE AND THE CASCADE FOOTHILLS BY THURSDAY. ACCUMULATIONS IN THE HIGHER CASCADES COULD REACH SEVERAL INCHES THROUGH THE WEEK.

NIGHT TIME LOW TEMPERATURES IN THE VALLEYS AND NEAR THE COAST WILL LIKELY FALL TO NEAR 32 DEGREES AS EARLY AS WEDNESDAY NIGHT... BUT ESPECIALLY ON THURSDAY NIGHT AND FRIDAY NIGHT. SOME LOW TEMPERATURES MAY FALL INTO THE UPPER 20S THURSDAY NIGHT THROUGH THE WEEKEND.

PREPARE NOW FOR THE CHANGE TO MUCH COLDER WEATHER COMING THIS WEEK.

...

[Pilar]

Silly humans. Better learn to think in terms of geologic time. With precision instruments orbiting the earth since what? The 1980's? We have studied 20 years worth of data and some groups have concluded that the earth is trending warmer. Some other groups go as far as blaming man and industry for this and suggesting major economic disruptions to solve the problem.

Things happen to the earth in periods of time measured in the thousands of years not mere decades. Climate is an average of conditions over a long time not just a short period of years. The climate is always changing in the short term and we are not sophisticated enough to understand the model it is following. Much of the enviro science used to scare you and manipulate you is based on things learned with sophisticated tools only recently available. A meaningful and irrefutable trend would span millenia not decades. The global rise in temperature is measured in tenths of degrees C over the last 20 years. What was the global temp 100 or even 1000 years ago, that might tell us something.

This precision is only possible because the tools are getting better.

Another thing to consider is that our global climate has undergone several drastic shifts in the distant past. I doubt seriously if those could be pinned on human activity. Are we affecting the climate? Maybe. Is there irrefutable evidence to support the global warming scare? No.


Before you believe any report generated by a think tank or other group with an agenda, ask yourself what the likelyhood is that the report they generate will disagree with their politics. Ask yourself who is paying their bills. Exercise critical thinking. You have a brain, use it.

[Thumper]

Pilar --- Well spoken!

[BrionLutz]

Thumper,

There are piles and piles of studies on both sides of the question, and no consensus, despite the source of all knowledge --- our Ifish friend Brion.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually no..all the science confirms the global warming and the man made component.

The IPCC is the worldwide scientific group setup to study the problem going back some 20 years. All it's reports have confirmed, with increasing certainty that global warming is upon us.

Hardly worth getting our collective panties in a bunch.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Unless you are salmon fishermen. It's having a big impact on the watersheds with the drought, lack of snow melt and glaciers that feed and cool the salmon streams. Changes in the ocean. Rising oceans with salinity lines moving upriver.

Brion

[Thumper]

I am sure that in the global context we Pacific Northwest salmon fishermen are a major concern of mother nature.

Thanks again for your wisdom. :tongue: You have a mighty fine moustache.

[DanS]

So we can put billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and it will have no effect?

Hmmmmmmmmm. &lt;Dan has doubts.&gt;

[STGRule]

You guys (collective guys, not male guys), I made a dumb joke about having to water in late October and you took off at mach speed. The only ones who got it were the zucchini bunch. Global warming? Yep I believe it. Is it ALL our fault? Don't believe it. Although all that non-bound carbon in air has got to be from something and it has to be causing accelerated problems. We best be doing something to mitigate out contributions or what normally takes thousands of years may be knocking on the door in a few hundred. And I still think we didn't have enough rain this year, AGAIN!

[2LEYS]

Looks like it might start going the other way, and to the salmon's benefit.

Look here.

Good job Bush for coming up with such a brilliant idea!

[happybrew]

It's time to settle this once and for all. Pay attention, I'm only going to say this ONCE!

Okay, here it is:

I, happybrew, am responsible for global warming. Yup! It's all my fault. Allow me to explain.

I have been on vacation this week. Prior to my vacation, the weather was cooling off. As soon as my vacation started, the skies got clear, the weather got warm. I haven't had a vacation in three years, not counting the convention in Hawaii my boss sent me to a couple of years ago. At any rate, God, knowing from long before I was born what would happen, took pity upon me, and set in motion a chain of events that would culminate in a week of warm weather on my much needed vacation. Note that tomorrow, showers are expected in the evening, and the weather will turn colder. Coincidence? Hardly. It's me. It's all my fault. Now that I've had my vacation, Global Warming is officially over. You can all relax. The ice sheets will expand to their normal size, the glaciers will return, and all will be well. Those of you who prefer to freeze while fishing for winter steelhead, instead of fishing in shorts and flip flops for them, can return to your masochistic enterprise once again.

happybrew

[BrionLutz]

PDXKevin,

temps swing both ways and there is no conclusive proof of the

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope. Scientists are in agreement that global warming is real, a huge problem and that there is a big manmade component.

<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientific consensus around climate change is robust. To make this point clear to policy makers in Washington, D.C., more than 1,000 scientists from across the nation have signed the State of Climate Science letter. This letter, from experts in the field, outlines the consensus on the anthropogenic component to climate change. In doing so, the letter reconfirms reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council that the consequences of climate change, which is driven in part by emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, will be both disruptive and costly to the United States.
</a>
Here are more science websites where you can read what the scientists say vs. your source which was the Washinton Times, a Reverend Moon owned newspaper (sheesh!)

<a href="http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf" target="_blank">In June 2001, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review requested by the president concluded that:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rise are expected to continue through the 21st century."</a>

How it's going to affect salmon fishing in the Pacific NW is huge.

Brion

[pdxkevin]

BrionLutz,

...Over 17,000 well-qualified scientists have signed the Oregon Institute Petition (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm) saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Here are just some facts they pronounce to unmask the myth...



What warms the earth?

or

Reputable scientists do not accept the theory of global warming. There is a catastrophe awaiting this country — not one caused by global warming, but by environmentalism's growing success at politicizing science.

or even

<a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/EarthDay00Myths.html" target="_blank">Myth: Human-induced global warming is underway and will cause major environmental disasters such as soaring temperatures, melting glaciers and a precipitous rise in sea level that will flood seaboard cities.

Fact: There is no evidence that man-made global warming is occurring...
</a>

...the sky isn't falling. I tend to believe the global lobbiest theory more than the global warming theory. If the UN is backing something - it is best to give it more closely.

[ 10-27-2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: pdxkevin ]

[Beefcake]

When I was a rafting guide (right after college - in the early 90's), I spent 15 days at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a scientist who's entire job was to track the location and size of the hole in the ozone layer. He made it very clear to everyone on the trip that he was happy to be a paid observer, but that we had no control over it. He explained that every time a volcano erupts, it does more damage to the ozone layer than humans have done in one hundred years. The cumulative effect has taken its toll on the ozone layer, but human disturbance accounts for less than one-half of a percent of the cause. If we had known this years ago, girls could still have big aquanet hairdos, and we could all drive GTOs!

[skahorse]

Happybrew,
That is ludicrous. To take a couple of random events in a short period of time and claim that they caused global warming. Sheesh, how dare you be so arrogant! Who knows, next you'll probably claim that since you know the average temperature of the earth has raised a few tenths of a degree over several decades, that that is proof of global warming. Man, the nerve of this guy :tongue: :grin:

I love hanging curveballs.

--Skahorse

[DanS]

Beefcake,

In a related note......every time they launch the space shuttle to go look at the hole in the ozone layer, they put something like 40% as many ozone-depleting compounds into the atmosphere as US industry in its entirety.

Brion......feel free to correct my numbers above if I'm mistaken. Thanks.

[happybrew]

Skahorse: It's as good an explanation as any!

But not to worry, the whole warming thing is over. Now the ozone hole, that's not my fault. I'd blame my wife for that, but I blame her for enough things already. Perhaps my boss. I haven't blamed much on my boss lately. :grin:

I know: the butterflies did it! Ozone is a very reactive molecule. The cumulative effect of billions of butterfly wings flapping altered air currents on a microscale that created shear forces on ozone molecules. The reaction goes as follows:

2 O3 -----&gt;force-----&gt; 3 O2

Because ozone is a high energy molecule compared to O2, this is an exothermic reaction. The energy released is a contributing factor in global warming as well.

happybrew

[BrionLutz]

DanS,

Don't know about the Space Shuttle boosters (I'm a "Bring Back the Saturn Booster" booster) but the Ozone layer has been steadily depleting over the last 25 years. Those who are in denial look at year to year fluctuations as it spirals down but I think they know the science and the facts are against them.

Scientists clearly tie it to man made chemicals.

Here's the graph from NASA.

It's always a puzzle how we have 20 years of solid scientific data confirming Global Warming and its man made component and Ozone Layer Depletion and its man made component but folks are still in denial over it.

Brion

[skahorse]

20 solid years, huh...? :whazzup:

Am I missing something here?

Let's say the world has been in existance for 6,000 years. (I know... but thats a completely different debate) Let's just use that number because it's a nice round number. 20 years would be exactly 1/3 of a percent of that time frame.

So you can expect me to be convinced there is global warming when we have seen slight (tenths of a degree) increase over 20 years?

Now, let's say the earth has been around 1 million years. That would be a timeframe of .002 percent!

Should I even figure out a billion?

You've got a pretty convincing dataset there Brion :whazzup: and a nice moustache...???


--Skahorse

[skahorse]

Happybrew,
You've convinced me! Let's kill all of the butterflies! Quick, before we all die! :grin:

And the wife is always a good "catch-all" for blaming :tongue: She's my personal favorite. [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

--Skahorse

Just how many years have we been able to monitor the ozone layer and how do we know that the hole hasn't always been there?
Volcanoes spew millions of tons of SO2 and other bad gases every day.

[DanS]

Yeah, but we don't have much control over volcanoes. They do their own thing. A sizeable asteroid would change the global climate too......but so what? Is that a reason not to try to minimize OUR impact on the atmosphere?

Ska,

I'm not sure what your point is. A very small temperature change can bring monumental changes in weather patterns. Humans have only been doing things to change the amosphere in any significant way for a hundred years. Therefore, you could say that any measurable change in global temperature is significant. If you saw a 1 degree change in global tempreatures in 100 years, that would seem significant to me.......since changes in global temps usually take place over greater periods of time.

.01% Not much if you ask me.

We should reduce our emissions and eliminate ALL dumping in the water.

[skahorse]

DanS,
My point is, you cannot take 20 years of data and conclusively say that any warming is our fault. You can't even take 100 years and prove that. Personally, I think to even float the idea, let alone pass it as fact is extremely arrogant. Who are we, basic human beings, claiming that we understand thousands(millions?) of years of climatology, ice-ages, and every other climate/environment change and it's effect on the earth...? It is completely un-scientific, based solely on emotion and politics.

Yeah, but we don't have much control over volcanoes. They do their own thing.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yea, but according to previous posters our environmental impact versus a volcanoes environmental impact is a drop in the bucket. So what's the big deal? Why should we change, it's the volcanoes that are going to kill us. :whazzup:

--Skahorse

[ 10-28-2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: skahorse ]

[DanS]

Maybe the volcanoes will kill us. Maybe they won't.

I agree to a certain extent with your assessment of 20 years, or even 100 being used as an indicator of global tempreature changes. The reliability is questionable.

But denying that adding tons of carbon to the atmosphere will have a detrimental effect on the atmosphere also strikes me as arrogant.

[skahorse]

DanS,
Detrimental? OK. The degree of detriment? Questionable.

[DanS]

Agreed. And now, back to our scheduled programming...........

[Jimmy Carl Black]

Disclaimer: Most of this post assumes that the generally published geologic literature is in the ballpark.

The earth has been its orbit around the sun for roughly 4 billion years :shocked: . The current ice age, during which there have been 30+ glacial advance/glacial retreat cycles, is about 2 million years in the running.

Temporally speaking, poloar ice caps are somewhat analogous to breaking out after eating too much chocolate.

I found this link a while back one day when I was curious to the validity of global warming claims. I just don't buy it yet.
http://museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...ciations1.html

Anyway, burning oil and gas until we either run out or put ourselve in further danger of it, (is that proper English?) is not wise policy.

I urge everyone to support alternative energy sources and SOUND policy encouraging them. Speaking of that-would biodiesel work in a boat?

Anyway, burning oil and gas until we either run out or put ourselve in further danger of it, (is that proper English?) is not wise policy

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> More wisdom from JCB

[Jimmy Carl Black]

Thanks Keta. Your praise is giving me a much needed ego boost.

Unfortunately I have to go hit the books now and leave the discussion forum so that I may retain this higher level of thought.

[FishaholicAZ]

Global warming is a concern. However, I beleive we as humans seem to blow things way out of proportion. I agree that there needs to be changes. I think that the US probably has the toughest emissions standards in the world for cars. I could be wrong... We also have some of the toughest if not the toughest laws governing industry in the world. Now we are also the biggest producer of these gasses because unlike say france or germany or britain, there populations are a fraction of ours. We are consumers... Are we willing to change in order to produce less waste?
What we need to do is take our dependence off of oil based products and begin looking into alternate fuels... However, personally, I am not that concerned... Yet.
However, I am willing to let the blame fall squarly on the shoulders of happybrew. Yes, I am ok with that...

[Pilar]

Thank you Keta for making the only relevant point. We as a society make way too much of the here and now with little in the way of historical perspective.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it fall did it really fall? :whazzup:

If a man makes a mistake and no woman is around to catch him at it ... did he really make a mistake? [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img] :tongue:

For all we know and may know after years of data collection and study of apparent trends .. the ozone hole is a naturally occuring phenomenom. It is something we have noticed for about 20 years. What did it do before we noticed it?

The GTO will be missed. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

A short term type of pop science dominates our culture and the media is an active partner in this. Bran is good for you, followed a few months later by bran is bad for you. Who decided it was good? The guy who wanted to sell bran. He commisioned a study and his hired pencil pushers came to surprise the exact answer the guy was looking for. [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

Looking at things with a short term view is a shoddy way to do science. Take a pendulum for instance. If you study the motion of a pendulum for a brief instant of time, the conclusions you draw will very much depend on the moment you watch it's movement.

1) At the center of the oscillation the pendulum is moving at maximum speed in one direction.

Conclusion - Pendulums move to the left at high speeds on an arc. Perhaps they circle the pivot point.

2) At the end of the swing the pendulum briefly stops and then reverses the direction of travel.

Conclusion - Pendulums change direction.

This is an absurd example but it illustrates the point. To base any conclusions on a short time period of observations is bad science.

There is a recent 'discovery' by scientists and climatologists regarding El Nino. Remember El Nino? No not Chris Farley 'Yo Soy El Nino'!!! The latest on El Nino and the way it affects our weather here in the Pacific NW is that there is a pattern to it called the 'Pacific Decadal Oscillation'. The climate here in our area and the area influenced by the Eastern Pacific ocean goes through a 30 year pattern. A long period of 'Dry' years and then a similar period of 'Wet' years. This is obvious when you study rainfall records and weather observations taken for the last 100 years. We are currently in the 'Wet' part of the cycle after having droughts for several years in a row back in the '90's.
Kind of like the Pendulum and it's oscillation, eh?

The trend is for a global increase in temperature. That is indisputable. That we humans and our activities caused it based on the short term science is questionable at best. That we should use the short term science to justify the agenda of certain extremist environmentalist groups is ludicrous. One meteor strike or one huge volcanic eruption could easily overwhelm any effect we are having as a species on the climate of the earth.

Maybe we should cork all the volcanoes and build a huge shield against meteors. Or maybe we should worry about some of the real problems we face on earth.

[BrionLutz]

Skahorse,

20 solid years, huh...? Am I missing something here?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes...science evidence with 20 years of research vs. those who go for faith based answers.

What you miss is that scientists have a good idea on weather, geology etc. going back millions of years. The 20 years of research work is looking at data going back thousands of years plus current conditions.

One can certainly choose to ignore the scientific evidence and the scientists but claiming they are wrong is not really an option.

I think things like Global Warming, Ozone Depletion scare folks (it should) because it increases their feeling of powerlessness in this increasingly complex and interdependent world.

It shouldn't since knowing the problem also gives us an idea on what to do about it.

The recent report on the positive economic impact of environmental legislation means that Kyoto Treaty, Energy Efficiency Bill etc. not only offer solutions to the problems but will give us an economic boost.

Brion

[DanS]

By the same token if you looked at a plane crash from inside the cabin 4 seconds before the plane hits the mountain, it would look hunky-dory. That blade cuts with both sides.

In my experience, you solve the problems you can. Corking volcanoes and diverting asteroids isn't realistic.........regardless of what their environmental impacts are.

[Tanner]

Much of the enviro science used to scare you and manipulate you is based on things learned with sophisticated tools only recently available.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

I don't have any scientific data to back this, but from what I have learned about the formation of the earth and the many changes that the earth has been through, it seems to me that the earth has expelled more carbon into the atmosphere than we could possibly dream of. Most land masses were formed by some kind of volcanic activity and this has been going on for thousands of (Yes I believe only thousands) years.

Now I am not saying that we should not continue to regulate the amount of carbons and other pollutants and find other ways to "do business" alot cleaner. We need to be good stewards of this earth and all of it's resources.

[ 10-28-2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Tanner ]

One can certainly choose to ignore the scientific evidence and the scientists but claiming they are wrong is not really an option.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not all scientists agree on this. Which "scientific evidence" is right?

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Not all scientists agree on this.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually they do. The scientific concensus on Global Warming and Ozone Depletion is very solid. The concensus has grown with the R&D over the last 20 years.

I'm sure you noticed that the only "scientific" disagreement came from the Reverend Moon and a 6 person fringe psuedo-science company in Cave Junction Oregon (I just love their address &lt;grin&gt.

NASA, National Academy of Sciences, Intgovernmental Panel on Climate Change are the folks providing the scientific concensus.

Brion

You're doing it again Lutz.

Are you trying to get me in trouble for calling you a .......... again

and again

and again

And one more time

However, some solar scientists are considering whether the warming exists at all. And, if it does, might it be caused, wholely or in part, by a periodic but small increase in the Sun's energy output. An increase of just 0.2% in the solar output could have the same affect as doubling the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

[ 10-28-2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[DanS]

.............professional debater? :grin:

No Dan it sounds like fire.

[ 10-28-2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[DanS]

"Fire! Fire! Yeah! Yeah!"

Sorry, I went Beavis for a second there. :shocked:

[Thumper]

There is no consensus regarding global warming and man's role in it. This is, not surprisingly, despite Brion's continuing insistence to the contrary. What is amazing to some is that merely repeating a position ad nauseum does not make it so. :shocked:

[DanS]

And there's a hanging pitch to Lutz........

[happybrew]

What gets me about this whole issue is that it is not scientific at all. It is observational. Science is based upon experimentation. We cannot experiment with global weather. Therefore, there cannot be any real scientific theory about global warming. There can only be educated speculation, first about whether it is really happening (and this depends upon definitions), and second about the cause. In the end, it becomes entirely a political question, with alternative action plans based upon what we know and what we don't know, what we can affect, and what we cannot affect, and the potential cost of each course of action. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking the question is primarily one of science, because without experimentation, the scientific method is not being used. It's entirely speculation based upon naturalistic observation, which is notoriously definition dependent for which conclusions are reached. My speculation about my vacation causing global warming and butterflies causing the hole in the ozone layer, while admittedly not good explanations, follow the method of naturalistic observation. It is entirely dependent upon which observations are chosen, and how trends are defined. If we choose to pick 20 years as showing a trend, or 500 years as showing a trend, or 5000 years as showing a trend, each is equally arbitrary. That doesn't mean any of them are good or bad, but the level of generalization is certainly limited. Each choice makes certain predictions good, and other predictions bad. However because there is no actual variable or set of variables that are experimented with using controls, speculation is all we can get from it, not scientific knowledge. That's all we have to work with, but we should still recognize it for what it is.

happybrew

[Pilar]

Thanks for the links, Keta. The second one is pretty long but facinating nonetheless. I was wrong. This circus has been a 'happening' for only 15 years not 20. Also it seems that certain media stars are the main proponents of the 'unanimity of scientific research', not the scientists themselves. They are painfully aware that the research predicts results that are in fact not actually happening.

Some excerpts from Keta's second link above. Read the whole thing it is worth it. Gives a little historical perspective from the viewpoint of a scientist that was actually involved in the situation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
Climate models used produce data that does not match the observed trend
Not only are there major reasons to believe that models are exaggerating the response to increasing carbon dioxide, but, perhaps even more significantly, the models' predictions for the past century incorrectly describe the pattern of warming and greatly overestimate its magnitude. The global average temperature record for the past century or so is irregular and not without problems. It does, however, show an average increase in temperature of about .45 degree centigrade plus or minus .15 degree centigrade with most of the increase occurring before 1940, followed by some cooling through the early 1970s and a rapid (but modest) temperature increase in the late 1970s. As noted, we have already seen an increase in "equivalent'' carbon dioxide of 50 percent. Thus, on the basis of models that predict a four degree centigrade warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide we might expect to have seen a warming of two degrees centigrade already. If, however, we include the delay imposed by the oceans' heat capacity, we might expect a warming of about one degree centigrade--which is still twice what has been observed. Moreover, most of that warming occurred before the bulk of the minor greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. Figure 2 shows what might have been expected for models with differing sensitivities to a doubling of carbon dioxide. What we see is that the past record is most consistent with an equilibrium response to a doubling of about 1.3 degrees centigrade--assuming that all the observed warming was due to increasing carbon dioxide. There is nothing in the record that can be distinguished from the natural variability of the climate, however.

Any theory which requires much explanation or exception is not much of a theory. The best theories require little or no explanation.

And the hysteria industry was born
The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at least three years earlier. That was an especially warm summer in some regions, particularly in the United States. The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth increase in carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in testimony before Sen. Al Gore's Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was 99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made no statement concerning the relation between the two.

Despite the fact that those remarks were virtually meaningless, they led the environmental advocacy movement to adopt the issue immediately. The growth of environmental advocacy since the 1970s has been phenomenal. In Europe the movement centered on the formation of Green parties; in the United States the movement centered on the development of large public interest advocacy groups. Those lobbying groups have budgets of several hundred million dollars and employ about 50,000 people; their support is highly valued by many political figures. As with any large groups, self-perpetuation becomes a crucial concern. "Global warming'' has become one of the major battle cries in their fundraising efforts. At the same time, the media unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of those groups as objective truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
But this is only a paper written by yet another pointy headed scientist.

And on the subject of firing fires, how much carbon is being released in Southern California right now?

[Metal Manipulator]

I had a long reply giving the global warming alarmists hell but this stupid AOL droped my connection so I have had enough and this weekend if I'm not fishing it's gone!!!!!!!!!!