Author Topic: New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning  (Read 13210 times)

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0


If the worst is true, caps and trades, scrubbing the air, none of it is anything but a Band-Aid.  And this is probably the very worst part of the problem: the alarmists have convinced people both that there's this terrible problem and that it is fixable.  It is NOT fixable with wind turbines and shutting off your lights.  They know this though they won't admit this except in those rare circumstances when they start talking about population control and did you know how many acres of wheat it takes to grow a cow?  We must all become vegetarians too.  Cows fart too much, they're heating the planet.


I have not heard any serious climatologist or person who wants GW to be addressed argue that global warming could be stopped within a couple of years. Well it can't. What the IPCC says is with measures you can slow global warming which means you'll face less severe consequences in 2050 or 2100, albeit consequences are still there. Just as the ozone layer wasn't restored by phasing out CFCs etc. but its depletion was slowed and may eventually in many decades stop and in say 2050 the ozone layer may even start to recover.

P.S. as to cows, year they actually contribute to global warming. No doubt. Doesn't mean we need to be all vegetarians, does it? we can cut emissions elsewhere, can't we?

P.S.S. I take a global temperature increase of 1.5 C over an increase of 4 C until 2100 every day.

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
What the consensus argument overlooks is two factors.

One is that corporations... which wield many of the political privileges of human citizens while being vastly powerful, completely unintelligent and utterly amoral... many of the most powerful of these have a vested interest in the status quo especially where oil and to a somewhat lesser extent coal are concerned.
Funny, I'd say the same thing about government. Except that government can use force to make people follow their rules, companies can't.

Quote
Second is that right-wing conservatives... (here comes the autoresponse rejoinders screaming in at mach 5 before I even finish :) )... have built up a specialty line in debunking solid scientific theory and promoting false equivalences in psuedoscientific "theories" that happened to match their political and/or religious beliefs.
Funny, I'd say the same thing about the AGW proponents. AGW conveniently meshes with their desire to increase government's reach and control those nasty "vastly powerful, completely unintelligent and utterly amoral" companies.

Quote
Again... a lot of the global warming doubt in the public minds is the result of pure BS that has been and is being furiously generated by a combined corporate-conservative tag team matchup for years.
What would you call the massive pro-AGW campaign generated by governments, schools, media, etc, etc? We're absolutely saturated by the pro-AGW bandwagon every single day. My 9 yr-old daughter routinely came home from school with thoughts on how this or that was or wasn't "Green" or "good for the environment". It's really time for the pro-AGW side to stop whining about being "oppressed" by whatever imagined enemies they supposedly have. That may play well on campus but it doesn't cut it out in the real world.

Edit: I'm not a meteorologist and have limited knowledge of weather/climate. I'm a skeptic, which I always thought was a good thing when it came to science. However, I've seen the study-mills and other tricks used by some to promote their ideas. Consensus science isn't science at all, it's politics. When a new theory comes along with doomsday claims (billions dead, "Earth in Peril", etc.) accompanied by a radical political/government agenda, then claims that we "must do something now before it's too late", I think you should be skeptical too.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2009 01:52 PM by mikegi »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17809
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 463
  • Likes Given: 4379

If you're a true warming skeptic you'll need to shout to be heard above the roar of nonsense noise being generated by the corps and the wingnuts... and you'll also need to be careful your words are not incorporated into the pr campaign as supporting all the wingnut concepts you'd never say or subscribe to.


Okay, my turn to speak up.

Great post zapkitty.

To me, no matter which way people look at it, there is SO MUCH spin on this topic from both camps that people just need to make their own mind up, and stick with it.

I'm just going to follow the actions I believe to be true and be happy about it, damn the rest, because you can never win this fight until the end, whatever the end. You can either tar & feather me, or look at me in a better light when the wool gets pulled back from over our eyes.

Enjoy your discussions.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
You don't need to model things perfectly to have a high confidence AGW will happen:
1) The increase in CO2 due to human activity is indisputable.
2) The physics underlying the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is also extremely well established.
If you accept those two facts, AGW must be real to some degree, unless there is a negative feedback that counteracts it. Unfortunately, the positive feedback appears to dominate.

That leaves room for debate over the magnitude, but you can get reasonable estimates of the overall heat balance with much simpler calculations. Imagine you are heating a pan of water on a stove: Modeling the chaotic flow of convection cells is fiendishly difficult, but you don't have to do that to predict the temperature will increase, and make a decent estimate of how quickly it will happen.

Thank you. That is the best arguement that GW proponents could make -- simple, and essentially undeniable because it relies on the simple, easily verified physical properties of CO2. Instead, all too often they insult our intelligence by drawing best-fit lines through the last couple of decades of (highly noisy) temperature data and say "See -- this proves global warming"... Then they wonder why people doubt them.
John

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9690
  • Liked: 1405
  • Likes Given: 877
What the consensus argument overlooks is two factors.

One is that corporations... which wield many of the political privileges of human citizens while being vastly powerful, completely unintelligent and utterly amoral... many of the most powerful of these have a vested interest in the status quo especially where oil and to a somewhat lesser extent coal are concerned. 

Bad enough... but add to that...

Second is that right-wing conservatives... (here comes the autoresponse rejoinders screaming in at mach 5 before I even finish :) )... have built up a specialty line in debunking solid scientific theory and promoting false equivalences in psuedoscientific "theories" that happened to match their political and/or religious beliefs.

And so it's no surprise that the corporations adopted the conservative techniques and that the conservatives made opposing the very existence of solid climate change theories a part of the core conservative platform.

Imagine "creation science" with major corporate pr and research backing to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and, unlike the creationist dreck, warming skeptics have some scientific merit to back it up.

And that's why scientists who've never taken a penny of  the corporate efforts are often tarred with the same brush as the actual corporate shills... they're both saying similar things and the corporations have been caught lying through their teeth on this matter so many times...

It's not the fault of the actual skeptics, but they're being identified with a corporate hard-sell campaign that uses many of the right wing's most egregious anti-science tactics.

Again... a lot of the global warming doubt in the public minds is the result of pure BS that has been and is being furiously generated by a combined corporate-conservative tag team matchup for years.

If you're a true warming skeptic you'll need to shout to be heard above the roar of nonsense noise being generated by the corps and the wingnuts... and you'll also need to be careful your words are not incorporated into the pr campaign as supporting all the wingnut concepts you'd never say or subscribe to.

One thing that Griffin said but unfortunatelly he never really expanded on is the question as to whether we need to worry about human-made global warming. As he said, who is to say what the right temperature for the planet should be? The temperature on earth has fluctuated through history. Do we need to worry more about human-made global warming than non-human made global warming? I don't have the answers to these questions and I am not convinced that anybody really does but they are good questions to ask ourselves.

In any event, I am in favour of hybrid cars and alternate energy that can reduce pollution because it just seems to make sense. But I wouldn't kill the economy over it.

Unfortunatelly, the eco-hippies have hijacked the GW issue and are using it as a political football. In the environmentalist political arena, the real answers and solutions actually do not matter as long as you appear to be doing something (whether it works or not doesn't actually matter). As an example of this, nuclear power is probably one of the cleaner type of energy but you will not see the eco-hippies promoting it because of the issue of nuclear waste. They have hijacked the issue but they usually offer very little in terms of realistic solutions and are unwilling to accept some of the trade-offs that come with making a difficult political decision.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2009 03:07 PM by yg1968 »

Offline kimmern123

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Norway
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Well said. I always wonder what the motivation of people is who think that man-made global warming is a large conspiracy of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people while no-one can provide a shred of hard evidence for that conspiracy.

Nobody wants to claim "conspiracy" but it certainly is setting the stage up for such remarks when POLITICIANS get Nobel prizes for their "scientific" work. Wow.

I'm not at all denying the globe is warming. But look at something from a climatologist that doesn't have a hand in the money bucket either way: http://bit.ly/SBKrF

If this is referring to Al Gore winning the Nobel peace prize, that prize has very little to do with science. It is even awarded separately from the more science-oriented Nobel prizes. The scientific awards are awarded by Sweden, while the peace prize is awarded by the Nobel Institute in Oslo, Norway.

I'd rather not take sides in this arguement as it's pretty much impossible to lead a civilised discussion with either side. However I will say that I'd rather have a little slower economic growth for a small period of time, and perhaps change my cell phone or my tv a little less often, if that meant we could prevent global warming. That way we would anyway have invested lots of money in cleaner energy sources, and new technology that some day will benefit us no matter what, as oil reserves will dry up at some point.

Online Chris Bergin

Ok, this thread has run its course. Locked.

Tags: