I can't tell if you're joking or just an idiot.

[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2006 1:17:14 PM

You mean to tell us that there is not a single person on the far left that wishes to inflict harm against capitalism? Impressive, I should introduce you to Kris sometime, or maybe the communist party of NCState.

6/23/2006 1:20:20 PM

Quote :

"Am I the only one that saw "An inconvienient truth"? There doesn't seem to be much dispute in the scientific community, only in the community of politics."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

6/23/2006 1:24:50 PM

Quote :

"^^I gurantee you that if Enron had stayed around a little longer that we would have a CO2 cap and trade policy by now. It would have made all of us poorer to some degree but it would have made them a ton of money. There is huge difference between what is good for the economy and what is good for the profit of a few. "

You sound like such a victim. 'Poorer', you would've been the same then as you are now. The only difference is where that wealth is invested. A bigger slice invested in environmentalism is not necessarily a net loss.

But whatever dude. The stock market crash of 1929 was a socialist conspiracy, and the 16th amendment was never ratified. Have fun in your little world.

6/23/2006 1:44:10 PM

^ Oddly enough it is never a "socialist conspiracy" but like he and I said it is usually a "capitalist conspiracy" driven by some large corporation such as Enron which seeks to curtail the free enterprise system in search of larger profits.

6/23/2006 1:56:55 PM

I'm waiting for someone to suggest building a wall around the United States.

Though this time we could call the "Freedom Wall" and build it with immigrant labor.

In addition to keeping our towns safe from flooding, the Freedom Wall would keep foreigners out of our nation and ensure the Freedom of the American people.

6/23/2006 2:00:14 PM

Quote :

"You mean to tell us that there is not a single person on the far left that wishes to inflict harm against capitalism? Impressive, I should introduce you to Kris sometime, or maybe the communist party of NCState."

Loneshark, do you know what a Straw Man argument is? It's a logical fallacy when someone ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. That statement by you is a Straw Man.

6/23/2006 2:15:09 PM

Look, that was a pointless discussion I was having. I was merely pointing out what someone else meant when they said what they said. It was a strawman from the beginning, I was merely clarifying the strawman

Either way, it bears mentioning the outcome of one of mankinds experiments with curtailing carbon dioxide emissions:

Quote :

"But this so-called market-based scheme collapsed in May when prematurely released data revealed that there was a glut of credits. The per ton prices for these credits dropped from 31 Euros to 12 Euros in just three weeks, finally settling near 9 Euros. If the credit glut – and subsequent market crash – had stemmed from dramatic emission reductions as some initially thought, it would be cause for celebration. In fact, it was the result of an overly generous allocation of credits. Nor can the problem be fixed simply by tightening each country's allowances in the program's second -- 2008-2012 -- phase. For starters, countries – and companies -- are awarded carbon allowances not on the basis of their previous emission levels – as was the case with U.S.'s sulphur dioxide trading program, the template for the European program. Rather, these allowances are based on each entity's own future expectations of economic growth. The result is that everyone involved has every incentive to offer inflated growth expectations to obtain the maximum possible allowance they can get. Anyone that does otherwise becomes vulnerable to free-riders who quickly grab the credits that it has foregone. This is exactly what happened to England. It was the first among European countries to put its cards on the table and present a good-faith guess of the carbon credits it needed. But France, Germany and other countries simply upped their opening requests to gobble as many of the available credits as they could. The result is that UK is among the few countries that exceeded its total carbon allowance, forcing its companies to buy credits from their continental counterparts. In effect, UK's energy consumers – who ultimately bear the cost of these credits -- are subsidizing cheap energy for consumers elsewhere in Europe. England has sworn not to go first in the horse trading that will begin June 30 for the second phase of the program."

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060622.shtml

6/23/2006 2:36:23 PM

If conservatives are so sure this isnt happening, then why do i keep hearing pundits present evidence like "Time Magazine runs a cover on this every year and it STILL doesnt happen!"?

6/23/2006 2:39:43 PM

Quote :

"You mean to tell us that there is not a single person on the far left that wishes to inflict harm against capitalism?"

"One side" of the debate, or "the far left", does not mean the same thing as "a single person".

6/23/2006 3:20:54 PM

This "pundit", asking for some historic technical background, was actually referring to CNN.

But that's in the thread title, who cares about them?

6/23/2006 3:22:58 PM

What seem to be appearent is that increases in levels of Co2 correlate directly with rises in the earth temperatures. This has been born out through analyzing 60,000 years of ice core data.

What also seems appearent is that Co2 is a byproduct of industrialization, and that current Co2 levels are far above what they have ever been as a result of pre-industral phenomina (also see 60,000 years of core samples).

If this is a real problem (and most of the scientific, rather then the political community, thinks it is) then it is not enough to recap what hasn't, or won't, work. Something has to be done, or the consequences could be dire.

The US provides about 25% of the world's Co2. The emmision standards are so low here that we can't even sell our cars in China. The point is that sustainablity is not anti-capitalism. Sustainablity is good for the economy (unless you have a current vested interest in oil, short term).

Bobo's Law of Vision:
The problem with vision is that it takes 30 years to figure out who has it. And then it's a mute point.

(P.S. - TKE-Teg, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL is not an argument for anything. Come back when you bring some data, or can add anything at all to the discussion.)

From the movie:

Quote :

"It's hard to get people to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it."

I think that's the real nature of the problem.

6/24/2006 2:38:38 PM

mute, moot, it's wrong either way

6/24/2006 2:41:15 PM

Quote :

"The US provides about 25% of the world's Co2."

what?

6/26/2006 9:34:11 AM

i would assume he meant human-produced CO2.

according to 2002 UN data, the US is responsible for about 24 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_emissions

6/26/2006 12:48:47 PM

that makes sense...but not the way he phrased it

6/26/2006 12:49:57 PM

There is actually a TV show coming out soon that is on one of the major science networks (can't remember which one) that suggests that the people writing all the global warming articles are just trying to scare people.... That Glaciers/ Icebergs/ and many places in Antartica have actually shown an increase in thickness in recent years. And that in the 70's there were articles about global cooling and a severe deep freeze.

Until I see proof of either, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.

If anyone finds the link to the show (I saw a commercial for it the other day), Post it....

6/26/2006 7:59:27 PM

Most of the scientific papers of the 70s predicted global warming, and that hasn't changed.
Antarctica IS increasing ice mass. Greenland and the Arctic are losing more ice than is being replaced.
The science articles don't scare people. The shitty articles in the news do that. The major networks have done that for years with plenty other things; this is not a new low for them.

6/26/2006 8:18:40 PM

Quote :

"And that in the 70's there were articles about global cooling and a severe deep freeze."

New ice age, killer bees... They were examples of tabloids and made-for-TV movies taking a kernel of scientific truth and blowing it out of proportion.

If anything, the media is underplaying climate change this time around; there's a scientific consensus while the media's still debating it.

6/27/2006 2:47:33 AM

^^funny that the only real journal articles that i've seen quoted around here indicate human-induced global warming.

6/27/2006 8:11:28 AM

^^^^i think on Discovery Channel...does the commercial start off with some news reporter standing on a cliff in some cold rain and he's like "At first it would seem hard to imagine that global warming could be-" and then it cuts off with static?

^^how many times do you guys have to hear it to get this? there is NOT a scientific consensus for OR against global warming...just because somebody trying to make a point says "most scientists believe..." its not true

6/27/2006 10:11:45 AM

don't know if this has been posted elsewhere:

Quote :

"Supreme Court to rule on regulating carbon dioxide By Juliet Eilperin The Washington Post WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear arguments on whether the federal government must regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, a case that could have broad implications for utilities, auto manufacturers and other industries nationwide. The decision to take up Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency — a lawsuit that pits 12 states, 13 environmental groups, two cities and American Samoa against the federal government — could break the political impasse that has stymied regulation by the United States on global warming for more than a decade. Environmentalists and state and local officials argue that President Bush has the legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the 36-year-old Clean Air Act, because it is linked to climate change and poses a threat to the environment. While the Clinton administration endorsed this legal reasoning, it failed to issue rules on carbon-dioxide emissions. Now the Bush administration, which rejects this theory, must convince the Supreme Court it has no legal obligation to restrict greenhouse gases. "The court's decision to hear the case is momentous," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat. His state is suing the administration along with 11 others, including Washington. The EPA, which successfully defended its position before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last year, issued a statement Monday saying it was "confident in its decision" not to regulate carbon dioxide. The administration's voluntary efforts to cut emissions, it added, "are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy." Many foes of greenhouse-gas curbs also welcomed the court's announcement, arguing it will settle the question of regulation once and for all. William O'Keefe, who lobbies for Exxon Mobil and heads the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank, said he hopes the court applies the rigorous scientific standards it has required since the early 1990s. "If they apply that to this filing they will reject it," O'Keefe said. The Supreme Court's ruling is likely to come next year. "

6/27/2006 11:19:42 AM

Tree Twister:

Quote :

"^^how many times do you guys have to hear it to get this? there is NOT a scientific consensus for OR against global warming...just because somebody trying to make a point says "most scientists believe..." its not true"

Scientific Community:

Quote :

"the movie mentioned that a recent survey of peer-reviewed works on global warming showed that 0 out of the 900+ papers published in the last ten years cast global warming in a dubious light, as opposed to something like 53% of the 600+ popular journalistic articles in the same period of time."

I don't think there is that much debate in the science world. Only in the business world (i.e. the government policy world).

6/27/2006 3:21:09 PM

^i don't mean to be a bother, but could you possibly be any more specific than saying that quote came from the "Scientific Community"?

6/27/2006 3:44:14 PM

SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE

6/27/2006 3:58:06 PM

ALSO

SHUT UP YOU COMMIES WITH YOUR FUZZY MATH

6/27/2006 3:58:28 PM

^^^the study from the movie took a random sampling of 900+ out of something like 6000 peer-reviewed journal articles from the past 10 years


[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ^^^]

6/27/2006 3:59:33 PM

forgive me if i don't consider "the study from the movie" a good source based on the way you worded it

maybe the study is dead on...its just i'd like to see a link to it in writing as opposed to hearing about the movie with no direct source

6/27/2006 4:10:24 PM

it wasn't "from the movie" it was a peer-reviewed article itself. it was referenced in the movie. actually it might have been scientific american. i don't remember. there was something from that. but it was not done by al gore or anyone involved with the movie, it was just referenced.

6/27/2006 4:12:13 PM

i hear and understand that

but for the purposes of debate on TWW, we need a link

again i'm not knocking on the study...but without seeing the study or the movie, I have no way to evaluate it myself

6/27/2006 4:13:21 PM

Quote :

"Title: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change , By: Oreskes, Naomi, Science, 00368075, 12/3/2004, Vol. 306, Issue 5702 Database: Academic Search Premier Section: ESSAY BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then — EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" [1]. Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science [2]. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature [3]. In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in [4]]. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in [5]]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in [5]]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society [6], the American Geophysical Union [7], and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling [8]. The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" [9]. The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. Without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the Earth's surface. This year's essay series highlights the benefits that scientists, science, and technology have brought to society throughout history."

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 4:30 PM. Reason : no link because i had to do a journal search on http://www.lib.ncsu.edu]

6/27/2006 4:28:00 PM

that makes some sense...i'd like to see the references (dont have access to state network anymore) but it makes some good sense

but based on just that article and the article that Pi Master posted from the meteorologist from MIT

you can see where I'm skeptical to believe EITHER side completely right?

6/27/2006 5:24:32 PM

Quote :

"There is actually a TV show coming out soon that is on one of the major science networks (can't remember which one) that suggests that the people writing all the global warming articles are just trying to scare people.... That Glaciers/ Icebergs/ and many places in Antartica have actually shown an increase in thickness in recent years. And that in the 70's there were articles about global cooling and a severe deep freeze."

The global cooling you refer to was something that was bounced around in the popular press and wasn't representative of the science at the time. William Connelly has tracked down the history of this since people usually bring it up to cast doubt on the reliability of climate modelling.

In anycase, it isn't really helpfull to talk about retreating or advancing glaciers without providing some context. Glaciers depend on such factors as average temperature, cloud cover, and precipitation. Here in California the Sierra Nevada glaciers have been retreating for the past 50 years while those in the Trinity Alps & Shasta are stable or even growing. The advancement is attributed to greater precipitation in the northern part of the state.

6/27/2006 5:59:59 PM

Quote :

"that makes some sense...i'd like to see the references (dont have access to state network anymore) but it makes some good sense"

Ahah, backstep.

Quote :

"but based on just that article and the article that Pi Master posted from the meteorologist from MIT you can see where I'm skeptical to believe EITHER side completely right?"

Not really. In one hand you have the vast majority of the scientific community. In the other you have non-specialists, lobbyists, and industry shills writing articles for the WSJ, Cato, and junkscience.com.

OMG HOW CAN A RATIONAL PERSON COME TO A CONCLUSION THESE DAYS?

6/28/2006 3:41:30 AM

^you dont understand science either if you dont think someone should be skeptical about global warming

you also dont understand my position on global warming that i've posted in dozens of threads

6/28/2006 9:09:45 AM

^^ I think you have that backwards. Al Gore doesn't strike me as part of the scientific community.

That said, I've heard from the Scientific Community, the warming will be a degree or so, about the same as the 20th century, and the oceans will rise about a foot. Not a big deal and definitely not the end of the world.

Last I heard the scientific community gave a greater probability to nothing happening than it does to the worst-case scenario harped by Al Gore.

[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 9:20 AM. Reason : ^]

6/28/2006 9:20:09 AM

^^You accuse me of not understanding science, but you're the one expecting science to definitively explain a phenomina that's occuring in the present time?


^The scenario illustrated by Gore is the worst case scenario, sure.

But the more likely scenario is much worse than "nothing."

And a foot of water is serious. Were you the one who didn't care how many people in Bangladesh died? Someone said it a while ago. Can't remember who.

6/28/2006 3:40:24 PM

i'm not expecting science to definitely explain things

i'm expecting them to give the best estimate of whats going on

and i havent seen compelling enough evidence for either side for me to pick one

sorry i dont jump to conclusions as fast as some people

6/28/2006 3:46:22 PM

"some people" being the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field?

6/28/2006 3:51:45 PM

link?

6/28/2006 3:54:06 PM

jesus, i linked the article earlier in the thread.

6/28/2006 3:55:16 PM

^x's 12

[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 3:56 PM. Reason : 12]

6/28/2006 3:55:48 PM

well when you modify the word 'majority' with 'overwhelming' you are implying that only retarded scientists that are paid off by corporations could possibly not believe in global warming

i mean the overwhelming majority of scientists used to also think the earth was flat
so go figure

6/28/2006 3:57:18 PM

It is the overwhleming majority.

How you want to interpret that is up to you.



[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : Oh, and yeah. Scientists aren't to be trusted, so my point is moot. gg.]

6/28/2006 3:59:48 PM

here are the references (from the paper i quoted above) by the way:

Quote :

"1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1. 2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003). 3. See http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm. 4. J. J. McCarthy et ai, Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001). 5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). 6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003). 7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003). 8. See http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html. 9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change. 10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and C. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions."

[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/28/2006 4:00:49 PM

so when the overwhelming majority of scientists used to think the earth was flat

there were people back then like you and me and the person like you was like "the earth is flat, the overwhelming majority of scientists think so" and the person like me was like "i dont know if its flat or round...forgive me for not jumping to potentially wrong conclusions"

6/28/2006 4:01:34 PM

Quote :

"Scientists aren't to be trusted, so my point is moot. gg."

6/28/2006 4:02:28 PM

resorting to sarcasm when your point is shot down

i thought only morons like me did that

6/28/2006 4:02:51 PM

You resorted to an appeal to ignorance when your's was shot down.

I wasn't making a point, I was just making fun of you.

6/28/2006 4:04:35 PM

sounds like you're getting a little irritated that your regurgitated arguments arent cutting it anymore

6/28/2006 4:06:00 PM