Global Warming Poll

[Tim Smith]

Michael Crighton's "State of Fear" is both a good read, and very instructive. Personally, I'm more worried about direct pollution and toxicity of our cars and lifestyles than us somehow baking the planet. If we got to an increase of 5 degrees by our own doing, our planet would be so shot by the direct toxic effects of what we would have to do to reach that point that it wouldn't matter anyway.

I'll believe Al Gore when we stops cherry picking his science to suit his political and monatary agenda. I'll believe Rush when he does the same. Both sides have political agendas.

Yeah, Creighton writes a pretty good froth novel, but I didn't see much from him so far that makes sense regarding global warming and most of his stuff reflects a fairly gimmicky ideas about how ecosystems (and research) really works. What specifically did you like about his book?

Are there specific toxins you're worried about here?

The clearing rates for the ones in auto exhaust are generally much faster than CO2.

The ozone hole over Antarctica is finally shrinking (so apparently the CFC ban DID work and we CAN cooperate on hard issues like this one).

Where are we going with this? Estrogen mimics? Mercury switches? What's the specific issue?

[Tim Smith]

If they have a stake in it, they are going to cherry pick they data that supports their claim. How come Al Gore has never posted the U.S. warming data. Because there is no noticible warming trend in the U.S. How come he didn't include a side-by-side graph of Albany and New York City (Albany is cooling, and NYC is warming) in his little slide show that won him a Nobel Peace Prize? Not liking someone doesn't invalidate their position, but when they stand to make millions off of manufactured hysteria, I tend to be critical.

Dude. It's GLOBAL warming. You could stand here for decades and say "well yeah the planet is warming but that little spot over there isn't warming?"

You're breaking off little pieces of a data set to build the conclusion you want...that's called CHERRY PICKING!!!!

You're doing the very thing you're accusing others of doing...which makes it pretty clear you haven't even bothered to think this through.

Brew some coffee...clear your head...try again.

[Tim Smith]

I would like to see that graph with an overlay of population growth.

The temperature line doesn't seem to be behaving, kind of of erratic. some pretty significant swings actually.

That's how data always looks in complex systems. Lots of things are interacting there.

That's why you don't make conclusions about climate based on 1 or 2 or 8 years of data. You track it over many decades...as has been done.

[Fly_Guy]

Dude. It's GLOBAL warming. You could stand here for decades and say "well yeah the planet is warming but that little spot over there isn't warming?"

You're breaking off little pieces of a data set to build the conclusion you want...that's called CHERRY PICKING!!!!

You're doing the very thing you're accusing others of doing...which makes it pretty clear you haven't even bothered to think this through.

Brew some coffee...clear your head...try again.

I might point out that you would've written the same nonesense in the 70s, but substituted global cooling for global warming.

Think about that.

I'm not saying its not going on. I'm saying that just presenting one side for the purpose of political/economical means is a obvious to almost everyone. I'm not breaking off little pieces of data and presenting them as a whole, I'm pointing out conflicting data, which is what science is suppose to do. Right now, the working hypothesis is global warming, but in the country where the methods of recording data from as early as the 1880s are the most accurate, there is no noticible trend.

There are WAY to many variables to make Mr. Tim Smith, or myself some expert. I am saying BE CRITICAL.

[Fly_Guy]

I might add that I completely support alternative energy efforts, and am willing to pay more in taxes GLADLY if it means America can lead the way in the quest. Its the best 200 million that Obama has thus far spent (on incentives for clean energy)

[Tim Smith]

I might point out that you would've written the same nonesense in the 70s, but substituted global cooling for global warming.

Think about that.

I did think about that. And you haven't.

The work in the 70s predicted an ice age 10,000 years from now. Global warming is happening now. The climatologists aren't confused about that, but you are. That distinction was even covered this on this very thread.

You may need something stronger than coffee.

[Fly_Guy]

The work in the 70s predicted an ice age 10,000 years from now. Global warming is happening now. The climatologists aren't confused about that, but you are. That distinction was even covered this on this very thread.

Actually not. Sorry. At the time, the worry was imminent global cooling. and just found this http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121447 . It's hilarious - a meteorolgist predicting imminent global cooling (like we havent seen since the 70s) from 2010. jeepers. Do you get the idea that we really have no idea??? Go clean environment, Stop with mass hysteria about cooling...no wait... warming... no wait... cooling.

[Tim Smith]

Actually not. Sorry. At the time, the worry was imminent global cooling. and just found this http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121447 . It's hilarious - a meteorolgist predicting imminent global cooling (like we havent seen since the 70s) from 2010. jeepers. Do you get the idea that we really have no idea??? Go clean environment, Stop with mass hysteria about cooling...no wait... warming... no wait... cooling.

Fly guy, it's no wonder you're calling for a close of topic. You've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner and you're going to have some some work to do to dig yourself out. Crashing into a thread, making a series of flawed assertions and then yelling for the thread to close is pretty much what a bomb thrower does.

I'm still waiting for you to point out what toxins you think are more important than climate change.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you can accuse someone of cherry picking and then immediately engage in cherry picking yourself.

I'm watching you call for political balance...and then linking to a conspiracy web site misrepresenting the views of one man.

Here's an annotated synthesis of the climate science from the '70s. Here. You can check out the references. Even in the 70's most scientific papers were noting a modern warming tend in the climate. The concensus among climatologists about warming is decades old. The kind of flip-flopping you're trying to portray simply hasn't occurred.

Now if you want to talk about what the popular press (not the scientific majority) has been saying, you are on much better ground. Yes. The Ice Age did get sensationalized in the press in the 70s. The press, clearly, are not scientists.

If you want to make the point that the press runs too far with scientific speculation sometimes, yes. That's clearly true. If you want to make the point that there are political dangers involved in making policy or dealing with large scale problems, yes, we agree there too. But you have a lot of other things to clean up here.

[Forsythian]

Conservation is good. Pollution is bad. The climate changes. Facts all.

Anthropogenic global warming is not a fact. Anthropogenic global warming is a theory that has become a religion. I don't know how else to explain the fervent faith and the myopia it takes to worship a 200 year temperature graph in the face of 4.5 billion years of cataclysmic climate change.

Entrenched climatologists are not scientists, they are incestuous statisticians. They cite each other's work and suppress debate. Their genetic purity will eventually undo them, but for now it's a nice gig. I say good for them, they are proving better capitalists than the evil geologists. While the geologists make a good living, the climatologists are international rock stars!

The earth is becoming flat again. I need another beer.

[Fly_Guy]

hmmm. Sometimes, one has to respond, by giving it up as a bad job. I better delete my post about a close of topic - as that point is completely valid.

Never said toxins in the environment were linked to global warming, my point was that they are a more present danger. Already responded to cherry picking - representing both sides (even those that are contrary to your hypothesis) is important. But then again, you can always shout me down. That is a popular trend as well with some. Didn't mean to hurt yer feelers, but there we have it. In 20 years, when a new global hysteria is gripping the planet, we'll have another discussion.