^I agree that there are plenty of unbiased sources. But they arent the loud ones

[Edited on September 23, 2005 at 2:18 PM. Reason : pg2 knows the vast majority of the glaciers in the world are getting colder]

9/23/2005 2:17:57 PM

yeah... the glaciers getting colder is actually what is causing them to melt.

9/23/2005 2:19:45 PM

Yea thats right.

There's a growing concern in the scientific community that 'bad science' is getting a lot of publicity. Especially with this administration and the 'liberal media' missinterpreting scientific evidence.

9/23/2005 2:20:32 PM

TreeTwista is a perfect example of why climate loonies will never be convinced.

1) He believes that scientists cannot be totally certain about anything (i agree).

2) But he demands that scientists be 100% certain before they can advocate policy changes.

It's the exact same catch-22 bullshit that crops up in the evolution debate. "It's just a theory!!"
Once you add this faulty reasoning with blind self-confidence (he things have a degree in marine science from State qualifies him, more than others, to comment on climate change).

It's the perpetual game of "prove me wrong" that keeps everyone arguing in circles.

[Edited on September 23, 2005 at 2:26 PM. Reason : ``]

9/23/2005 2:24:12 PM

There's no debate between Evolution and ID.

One is supported by science, the other is not.

9/23/2005 2:27:24 PM

The fun part is they dont cancel eachother out

9/23/2005 2:37:33 PM

^^ Thanks for missing the point and putting words in my mouth.

Thinking there is no debate over evolution means you don't understand the meaning of the word "debate".

9/23/2005 2:58:36 PM

Socks, I didn't figure you to be one of the "better safe than sorry" crowd.

That said, you fail to recognize the fundamental problem in the global warming debate: neither side can predict the future.

The question is scientifically reasonable to ask: Is it correct to tax gasoline to $X a gallon with all that implies, to prevent Y degrees C warming, and all it implies?
Scientifically speaking, we have no idea what equation to use to generate X and Y. From what I remember from the studies, doing nothing will result in moderate warming of 1 to 2 degrees C.

What values do you believe X and Y represent? Will $4 a gallon prevent all the warming? Perhaps $10 a gallon will restore the natural cooling some believe we should be experiencing? I got the impression that even dramatically larger fuel prices would barely result in any noticeable effects, if so then why do anything if the best we could do is going to have negligible benefits?

And what about those benefits? Will the negligible decrease in global warming actually prevent the "Super-storms" and droughts the alarmists predict? Hell, are these disasters even going to be affected by a moderate warming trend since most of the warming is going to take place during the winter, assuming the 21st century warming is similar to that experienced in the 20th century.

9/23/2005 3:02:54 PM

One thing I believe we can all agree on is that the sooner we get a cleaner alternative to oil, the sooner we can tell the Middle East to go to hell.

9/23/2005 3:55:35 PM

do you see how quickly you jumped from

Quote :

"Global warming sure was responsible for the 1900 Galveston, TX hurricane...I mean there MUST have been global warming to create such a big hurricane...it couldnt just be, I dunno, the Earth"

to

Quote :

"no nobody will argue that...the thing people argue is what caused high temperatures? natural cycles or more emissions? "

yeah, so does everyone else.

9/23/2005 4:03:58 PM

I said

Quote :

"There's no debate between Evolution and ID."

It wasn't addressing your point, it was an offhand reference.

9/23/2005 4:26:06 PM

Quote :

"two active cycles back to back, I am going to try to find some data on that"

ummmm... are you that dense? it was one active cycle of 20 years, then an off-cycle of 35 years. Then our current active cycle. Don't sound like "back to back" to me...

9/23/2005 6:15:53 PM

Let's try a scientific experiment.

Park your car in a garage with the doors shut, let the car run for 72 hours with you sitting there, and we'll see what the results will be.

9/23/2005 8:00:59 PM

Quote :

"One thing I believe we can all agree on is that the sooner we get a cleaner alternative to oil, the sooner we can tell the Middle East to go to hell."

Hell yes.

That being said, lets fire up some reactors.

9/23/2005 8:17:47 PM

I agree. Nuclear reactors could be built in the suburbs.

9/23/2005 8:23:31 PM

^ only if there was a massive freshwater source nearby.

9/23/2005 8:35:49 PM

Quote :

"we need to know more about global warming"

GWB

9/23/2005 9:20:12 PM

We need to know more about fire.

9/23/2005 10:16:05 PM

I think all this arguing about whether or not global warming exists is stupid. It's just a distraction from the fact that pollution damages our environment and we should constantly work to reduce it.

Arguing that global warming doesn't exist is pointless. Is that supposed to mean that we can pollute as much as we possible without suffering consequences? That arguement is a way of convincing stupid people that it doesn't matter when corporations pollute our towns.

9/23/2005 10:27:34 PM

^and Bingo was his name-o

9/23/2005 11:27:38 PM

^^ Patman, being at NCState I figured most of the people on here knew something about some aspects of science.

The point is, if global warming is not a problem we need to fix with emphasis, then CO2 emissions are not a polutant. And, if CO2 is not a polutant, then with sufficient technology to remove the real pollution we can burn all the fossil fuels we want without any negative environmental effects.

You see, CO2 is what we call "plant food." Green plants just can't get enough of the stuff. Research has shown that today's crop yields are something like 5% larger thanks to the 1/3rd increase in ambient CO2 levels during the past 150 years. So, as far as our environment goes, CO2 has benefits, assuming global warming is a crock/non-issue and can be or should be ignored.

9/24/2005 1:08:02 AM

No, there is no debate on whether CO2 is a pollutant. The question is does the amount we produce have a tangible effect on the environment and to what extent. There is no question that working to reduce CO2 emissions and other types of pollution is better for our environment than not.

[Edited on September 24, 2005 at 7:55 AM. Reason : ?]

9/24/2005 7:54:01 AM

Really? No Debate whatsoever? That is impressive.
So, by your reasoning, every animal on the planet and every rotting tree is producing the cursed CO2 pollution. Personally, I don't believe a warmer planet is a worse planet, so I don't believe CO2 has a down side, which only leaves the UP-Side of CO2: faster plant growth and energy.

9/24/2005 9:49:33 AM

Quote :

"No, there is no debate on whether CO2 is a pollutant. The question is does the amount we produce have a tangible effect on the environment and to what extent. There is no question that working to reduce CO2 emissions and other types of pollution is better for our environment than not."

so which is it again? It is, or isn't, a pollutant. And, if it isn't a pollutant, then why bring it up in reference to reducing pollution?

9/25/2005 1:54:24 PM

Reread that again, chief.

9/25/2005 1:55:39 PM

I did. And if he is calling CO2 a pollutant, then he has contradicted himself. If he is saying otherwise, then bringing up reducing CO2 is incongruent with his statement of "lets not get lost in the global warming argument."

9/25/2005 1:56:55 PM

There is no contradiction within the quoted passage.

9/25/2005 1:58:28 PM

Ok, sorry, it looked as if you were saying CO2 was a pollutant, our bad.

9/25/2005 2:04:21 PM

What?

9/25/2005 2:13:02 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I don't believe a warmer planet is a worse planet, so I don't believe CO2 has a down side, which only leaves the UP-Side of CO2: faster plant growth and energy."

try again

9/25/2005 2:53:55 PM

^^ We thought you said CO2 was a pollutant, which it is not. We made a mistake, so I was saying I was sorry.

^ Uh, which part should I try again? My sentence structure? Did I misuse the word "worse"?

9/25/2005 3:15:13 PM

ummm, the word "other" modifying pollutants implies that he is also saying CO2 is a pollutant. thus the reason I said "which one is it?"

9/25/2005 7:45:24 PM

Quote :

"I enjoy how these "scientists" use phrases like, "very likely" and then go on to speak as though there was emperical evidence to support their point of view."

Very likely is about as close to you get to saying "it is" in science. We can't prove there is a physical universe and so of course we cannot prove that global warming is a result of human actions. However, it is ver likely.

9/25/2005 8:48:18 PM

^ Stay away. Let a half-assed educated dork from Bumfuck pwn a respectable professor with tens of years of experience that manifested itself in many tens if not hundreds of peer reviewed works.

9/25/2005 8:56:12 PM

^^ I've never heard a scientist say "The Law of Gravity in very likely" or "the sun is very likely to be hot" or "the Earth is very likely to be round."

As such, Very Likely probably means just what it says, very likely in this scientists opinion. Now, we have some historical evidence to draw upon so we can draw a "very likely" result of global warming, and using the last 100 years or so I don't expect much. Even if it gets a little worse, I have no doubt we can utilize our intellect to manage.

So, the burden of debate is on you:
First, demonstrate that the global warming we are experiencing is because of CO2 emissions and not more mundane causes such as natural cycles or increased urban effect.
Second, demonstrate that the global warming which is because of CO2 is going to make life difficult.
Third, demonstrate that the problems caused will be beyond the abilities of mankind and nature to adapt.
Fourth, demonstate that these insurmountable costs are in excess of the costs associated with limitting CO2 emissions.

I might give you the First, but two to four are all on you.

9/25/2005 9:17:06 PM

anybody want to explain to me, since global warming exists and somehow some of you guys have proven that (wow nice job, nobel prizes all around), how come there hasnt been a recent influx in tropical weather systems in the pacific or indian oceans? i guess all the warming is between africa and the us in the atlantic and the gulf of mexico...wouldnt be dispersed over the whole planet or anything...i mean the main reason global warming must definitely exist is becaus humans can look at a couple hundred years of data and make conclusions about a 3 billion year old planet...gosh we are geniuses

9/26/2005 9:22:52 AM

i think the pot has finally gone to your head

9/26/2005 9:24:56 AM

wow that sure is a productive comment to the topic thanks for shedding some light instead of just being a smartass with absolutely nothing insightful to say

9/26/2005 9:26:20 AM

im just following your ways

9/26/2005 9:30:46 AM

go back to your disco biscuits thread, the adults are talking

9/26/2005 9:33:56 AM

wow that sure is a productive comment to the topic thanks for shedding some light instead of just being a smartass with absolutely nothing insightful to say

9/26/2005 9:34:59 AM

^ hi pot meet kettle


IF YOU DONT LIKE THE WAY WE DO THINGS THEN GET THE HELL OUT

9/26/2005 9:40:17 AM

hey, its a troll party!

9/26/2005 9:41:33 AM

anybody want to explain to me, since global warming exists and somehow some of you guys have proven that (wow nice job, nobel prizes all around), how come there hasnt been a recent influx in tropical weather systems in the pacific or indian oceans?

9/26/2005 9:49:00 AM

i think the pot has finally gone to your head

9/26/2005 9:49:33 AM

translation:

[I dont know, CNN didnt tell me]

9/26/2005 9:52:40 AM

ok see you at the sit-in over at the frisbee park across from the evil factory i heard theyve got lots of acid and molly over there

9/26/2005 9:53:38 AM

go back to your disco biscuits thread, the adults are talking

9/26/2005 9:53:54 AM

clever way to change the subject when you're wrong...well not really clever as much as much as stupid

9/26/2005 9:54:57 AM

nice job, nobel prizes all around

9/26/2005 9:56:34 AM