Page 69 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1959646566676869707172737479 ... LastLast
Results 1,361 to 1,380 of 2209
  1. #1361  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Adroit observations indeed. Mind you, let the record show that I never held the position that man-made global warming was a myth. I merely raised the possibility, though the presentation of scientific evidence, that at the very least, suggests that perhaps we should step back for a moment and see what the science really is on the matter.

    As you can see, the mere suggestion of questioning certain individuals who are deemed to be beyond reproach illicits a violent reaction.....
    Well, now you know.

    It's unfortunate because there can't be an open discussion of serious issues when people take things so personally and continually insult each other. I hope that at least the name calling has ended for good.


    And I hope you stick around because otherwise it'll get boring around here again. I think the liberals recognize that too.
  2. #1362  
    In the spirit of providing constructive information to this thread, I am linking the views of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest and most respected scientific organization in the US.
    http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/
    Here is what they say about global warming:
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf
  3. #1363  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    In the spirit of providing constructive information to this thread, I am linking the views of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest and most respected scientific organization in the US.
    http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/
    Here is what they say about global warming:
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf
    It was probably more constructive the first dozen times. That being said, I was always under the impression that in science, empirical results and predictive accuracy were more important than size or esteem.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #1364  
    More constructive information. This time an editorial from the Editors of Nature. As all scientists know, the Journal Nature is one of the most highly respected and highly cited science journals.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/about/index.html

    Nature 445, 567 (8 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/445567a
    The release of the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last Friday marks an important milestone (see pages 578–585 and 595–598). Following the scientific consensus that has been apparent for some time, a solid political consensus that acknowledges the problem finally seems to be within reach. But achieving this outcome brings its own risks.
    Until quite recently (perhaps even until last week), the general global narrative of the great climate-change debate has been deceptively straightforward. The climate-science community, together with the entire environmental movement and a broad alliance of opinion leaders ranging from Greenpeace and Ralph Nader to Senator John McCain and many US evangelical Christians, has been advocating meaningful action to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions. This requirement has been disputed by a collection of money-men and some isolated scientists, in alliance with the current president of the United States and a handful of like-minded ideologues such as Australia's prime minister John Howard.
    The IPCC report, released in Paris, has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the climate-change sceptics' feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous. However, this predicament was already clear enough. Opinion in business circles, in particular, has moved on. A report released on 19 January by Citigroup, Climatic Consequences — the sort of eloquently written, big-picture stuff that the well-informed chief executive reads on a Sunday afternoon — states even more firmly than the IPCC that anthropogenic climate change is a fact that world governments are moving to confront. It leaves no question at all that large businesses need to get to grips with this situation — something that many of them are already doing.
    The IPCC report has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the sceptics' feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous.
    Tough choices
    So then, the enemy is vanquished and the victors can rejoice? Hardly. In fact, the pending retreat from the stage of the president of the United States and his allies leaves those who do acknowledge the severity of the problem facing an even greater challenge than before. The world now broadly accepts that we have a problem, if not a crisis. So what is to be done?
    The policy choices that lie ahead are more daunting than political leaders (or the media) have thus far been ready to acknowledge. In a sense, twenty years of frustrating trench-warfare with the sceptics has prevented a rational discussion about what needs to be done from even taking place.
    At present, the political response to the situation is, in large part, incongruous. We need to restrict emissions in the developed world, and some steps are being undertaken to do just that, chiefly through the much-maligned Kyoto Protocol. We need to develop clean energy sources, and these are being pushed ahead quite rapidly, although each one — nuclear power, biofuels, wind power and hydropower, for example — creates its own environmental battlefield. Steps are also being taken to build systems for large-scale carbon capture and storage, and to improve the efficiency with which energy is used (see pages 586–591).
    The trouble is, none of this is even close to being sufficient to meet the challenge. Hybrid cars are being purchased (and often allow their lucky drivers special access to empty highway lanes). David Cameron, the leader of Britain's Conservative Party, has sought planning permission to erect a wind turbine in his back garden. And Pink Floyd and Pearl Jam have declared that their most recent world tours would be 'carbon neutral'. But we are all vaguely aware that all of this is nowhere near enough.
    Economic sacrifice
    Even the most progressive governments continue to put the issue of climate change on the back seat behind their fundamental commitment to strong economic growth, which is needed to ensure political survival (in developed countries) and to enable human dignity (in developing countries). So in a typical European nation, for example, governments are calling for strenuous emissions cuts while also planning airport expansions that anticipate a further tripling over the next twenty years of air travel — the fastest-growing source of emissions, and one not capped by the Kyoto Protocol.
    The fundamental difficulty here is that it has been politically impossible to accept that fighting global warming may involve some economic sacrifice, at least while the sceptics were in the picture. As these are vanquished, it becomes possible — and indeed necessary — to start the discussion.
    Similarly, it has been hard to talk about actions that need to be taken to adapt to the damage already certain to be caused by climate change and associated rises in the sea level, as such steps were regarded as a capitulation to those who just want to keep emitting greenhouse gases. This is no longer the case (see page 597). Adaptation, which can take many forms ranging from the Thames Barrier in London to the introduction of drought-resistant crop strains in the Sahel and the establishment of a proposed climate-change adaptation fund, needs to be squarely on the agenda, alongside emissions cuts.
    A similar relaxation arises with regard to revised negotiations for the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol. There is a case for opening the second phase beyond a simple extension of the cap-and-trade proposals that made up the core of the first. US President George W. Bush will remain a participant in such negotiations until the end of 2008. But even before then, talks should include all the options open to a planet that is now ready, at last, to acknowledge the fix it is in.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/445567a.html
  5. #1365  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    More constructive information. This time an editorial from the Editors of Nature.
    How is an editorial constructive?
    As all scientists know,
    I think you hurt your cause far more than help it with hyperbole.
    the Journal Nature is one of the most highly respected and highly cited science journals.
    One would hope that all scientists respect and cite it more for real science rather than editorials.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #1366  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    How is an editorial constructive?

    I think you hurt your cause far more than help it with hyperbole.

    One would hope that all scientists respect and cite it more for real science rather than editorials.
    My "cause" is that I agree with the scientific consensus on global warming and I don't try to pretend there is some type of controversy about it. Also, I will continue to post additional information and even if its just breaking my sentences up into small pieces, I still do welcome your comments.
  7. #1367  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    My "cause" is that I agree with the scientific consensus on global warming
    That concept is the one problem I have with this whole type of discussion. Why should we even be discussing 'consensus' where science is concerned? The very fact that we are is telling. Of course, so is the fact that you're being dismissive of what I said.
    and I don't try to pretend there is some type of controversy about it.
    It seems to me that the way the subject is still being discussed shows that there is controversy about it.
    Also, I will continue to post additional information and even if its just breaking my sentences up into small pieces, I still do welcome your comments.
    Additional would imply that you were posting something which had not been posted already. I would welcome that. I'm only 'breaking up' your sentences to parse different things being discussed. Of course, I use the term 'discussed' loosely here, since there is very little discussion happening.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1368  
    What I find interesting of those on the forum who insist on the "climate warming, the sky is falling, blame man" line of thinking is that they use characterise their sources under the catagory of "scientific consensus".

    In other words, any scientific sources that say otherwise means **** because they are not some part of some imaginary group labelled "scientific consensus".

    Of course, use of the phrase "scientific consensus" is easily defeated when the person is asked to provide proof of such consensus. The response is usually extreme, ranging from complete silence to puerile name calling.
  9. #1369  
    OK...

    Regardless of where we want to place blame for the climate changing I think that it is safe to say that everyone recognizes that the change is occuring. I also think that it is safe to say that greenhouse gas emissions created by mankind, whether or not the root cause, aren't helping and are contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and, thus, are causing a problem.

    With the above in mind, why the hell are we arguing about where to place blame when we could be spending the same amount of brain power working on ways to combat the problem?

    Honestly... Who cares whether we started the fire? The point is that it is raging and we need to put it out!
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1370  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    I also think that it is safe to say that greenhouse gas emissions created by mankind, whether or not the root cause, aren't helping
    Debateable.....

    and are contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and, thus, are causing a problem.
    Debateable.......

    With the above in mind, why the hell are we arguing about where to place blame when we could be spending the same amount of brain power working on ways to combat the problem?
    I think science needs to conclusively establish there is a problem in the first place.

    Then, if there is a problem, whether or not it is correctable.

    And if it is correactable, what are the actions to take.

    Honestly... Who cares whether we started the fire? The point is that it is raging and we need to put it out!
    Let us find the fire first, if indeed there is one.
  11. #1371  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Debateable.....



    Debateable.......



    I think science needs to conclusively establish there is a problem in the first place.

    Then, if there is a problem, whether or not it is correctable.

    And if it is correactable, what are the actions to take.



    Let us find the fire first, if indeed there is one.
    Who is still debating that we have a problem? I live in the Midwest US and it is October and we're having 80 degree days...

    Anyway, stop wasting valuable intelligence on this thread and use it to, as you said, conclusively establish there is a problem in the first place (I'm pretty sure this one has been done); determine whether or not it is correctable; and determine what actions to take.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1372  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    Who is still debating that we have a problem?
    I think sufficient sources have been cited in this thread regarding both viewpoints on the issue.

    I live in the Midwest US and it is October and we're having 80 degree days...
    Well there you have it, 80 degrees days in the midwest in October - the surest sign yet.

    So, using your logic, the fact that New York City has seen more yearly snowfall, on average, in the last 35 winters than what was seen in the 100 winters before that....means we should be in global cooling.

    Please...

    and use it to, as you said, conclusively establish...
    That is a job for science to accomplish.....not a bunch of participants on an Internet forum.
  13. #1373  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well there you have it, 80 degrees days in the midwest in October - the surest sign yet.

    So, using your logic, the fact that New York City has seen more yearly snowfall, on average, in the last 35 winters than what was seen in the 100 winters before that....means we should be in global cooling.

    Please...
    I don't find the sarcasm very becoming. My statement was a reference to the world around me not an end-all Holy Grail.

    As far as your final statement is concerned, I'm glad you'd rather waste your time and effort in a fruitless debate instead of working toward useful goals.

    Thanks for the conversation.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1374  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    I don't find the sarcasm very becoming.
    I didn't find the limpwristed correlation between warm midwestern days to global warming all that appealing either, so I guess we are in the same boat.

    My statement was a reference to the world around me not an end-all Holy Grail.
    If it was just some random or casual reference, why bother anyone with such insignificance?

    Sheesh - talk about beating around the bush.
  15. #1375  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    Who is still debating that we have a problem? I live in the Midwest US and it is October and we're having 80 degree days........
    Science calls that "anecdotal data." It makes effective rhetoric but can be misleading.
  16. #1376  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Science calls that "anecdotal data." It makes effective rhetoric but can be misleading.
    Indeed.... My apologies... I was just a bit taken aback at that point.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  17. #1377  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    What I find interesting of those on the forum who insist on the "climate warming, the sky is falling, blame man" line of thinking is that they use characterise their sources under the catagory of "scientific consensus".

    In other words, any scientific sources that say otherwise means **** because they are not some part of some imaginary group labelled "scientific consensus".

    Of course, use of the phrase "scientific consensus" is easily defeated when the person is asked to provide proof of such consensus. The response is usually extreme, ranging from complete silence to puerile name calling.
    If I choose to accept the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the journal Nature, the Journal Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Research Council, the United States National Academy of Sciences and many others in the leadership of the scientific community who say there is a scientific consensus on humans and global warming, and I choose not to believe you, then I do not see how it should cause any problems to anyone concerned.
  18. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1378  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    If I choose to accept the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the journal Nature, the Journal Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Research Council, the United States National Academy of Sciences and many others in the leadership of the scientific community who say there is a scientific consensus on humans and global warming, and I choose not to believe you, then I do not see how it should cause any problems to anyone concerned.
    We are all free to believe what we want to believe. I don't think anyone disputes that.

    But to add the qualification of "scientific consensus" is disingenuous. The dozens of sources cited, at the very least, do indeed indicate that there is no scientific consensus on the issue - despite your protestations to the contrary.
  19. #1379  
    More heavy handed editing by Bush Co.

    White House cut back warming testimony
    Accusation tied to health presentation, which was cut from 14 pages to 4


    The Associated Press
    Updated: 4:40 a.m. PT Oct 24, 2007

    WASHINGTON - The White House severely edited congressional testimony given Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the impact of climate change on health, removing specific scientific references to potential health risks, according to two sources familiar with the documents.

    Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Atlanta-based CDC, the government's premier disease-monitoring agency, told a Senate hearing that climate change "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans."

    But her prepared testimony was devoted almost entirely to the CDC's preparation, with few details on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease. Only during questioning did she describe some specific diseases that likely would be affected, again without elaboration.

    Her testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had much less information on health risks than a much longer draft version Gerberding submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in advance of her appearance.

    "It was eviscerated," said a CDC official, familiar with both versions, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the review process.

    The official said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly "heavy-handed," with the document cut from its original 14 pages to four. It was six pages as presented to the Senate committee.

    Dr. Michael McCally, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, also sat on a panel testifying before the committee and afterwards complained about the editing.

    “It appears the White House has denied a congressional committee access to scientific information about health and global warming, McCally said in a statement Wednesday. "This misuse of science and abuse of the legislative process is deplorable.”

    Most notably, he noted, was removal of the statement that “CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern.”

    OMB: Edits 'line up' with policy
    The OMB had no comment on Gerberding's testimony. Gerberding could not be reached late Tuesday for comment.

    "We generally don't speculate and comment on anything until it is the final product," OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan said in reference to the draft testimony. He added that OMB reviews take into consideration "whether they ... line up well with the national priorities of the administration."

    Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee chairman, in a statement Tuesday night said the Bush administration "should immediately release Dr. Gerberding's full, uncut statement, because the public has a right to know all the facts about the serious threats posed by global warming."

    The Bush administration has been trying to defend itself for months from accusations that it has put political pressure on scientists to emphasize the uncertainties of global warming. Earlier this year a House committee heard testimony from climate scientists who complained the Bush administration had sought frequently to manage or influence their statements and public appearances.


    The White House in the past has said it has only sought to provide a balanced view of the climate issue.

    The CDC is part of the Health and Human Services Department and its congressional testimony, as is normal with all agencies, is routinely reviewed by OMB.

    Copies of the original testimony already had been sent to a number of associated health groups representing states, county and city health agencies that the CDC routinely coordinates with, a CDC official said.

    CDC spokesman Tom Skinner sought to play down the White House changes. He called Gerberding's appearance before the Senate panel "very productive" and said she addressed the issues she wanted during her remarks and when questioned by the senators.

    "What needed to be said as far we're concerned was said," said Skinner in a telephone interview from Atlanta. "She certainly communicated with the committee everything she felt was critical to help them appreciate and understand all the issues surrounding climate change and its potential impact on public health."

    Details of deletions
    The deletions directed by the White House included details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC's analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels, according to one official who has seen the original version.

    Gerberding seems to have tried to address some of those issues during questioning from senators.

    Boxer produced a CDC chart listing the broad range of health problems that could emerge from a significant temperature increase and sea level rise

    They include fatalities from heat stress and heart failure; increased injuries and deaths from severe weather such as hurricanes; more respiratory problems from drought-driven air pollution; an increase in waterborne diseases including cholera, and increases vector-borne diseases including malaria and hantavirus; and mental health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress.

    "These are the potential things you can expect," replied Gerberding when asked about the items listed. "... In some of these areas its not a question of if, it's a question of who, what, how and when."


    Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21449759/
  20. #1380  
    What a despicable administration....and yet, not surprising. My vitriol is cordially extended to those who still blindly support this pathetic president.

Posting Permissions