Page 9 of 111 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141959109 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 2209
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    His ancestors probably fought tooth and nail for the world being flat.

    He'll probably Google a search and provide some links offering "proof".
  2. #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Reading this thread I came a cross something I found rather funny. I am going to paraphrase some opinions here so....

    Those that feel that global warming exists, say that the "facts" show they are right. They also seem to say, why not just behave as though it were true, because if we do and it turns out global warming does exist then we will all be better off because we chose to believe the scientists and do what we can to protect the earth and ourselves. That's it in a nutshell I think.

    Now lets substitute a few words.

    Those that feel that God or a supreme being exists, say that the "facts" show they are right. They also seem to say, why not just behave as though it were true, because if we do and it turns out God or a supreme being does exist then we will all be better off because we chose to believe the religious and do what we can to protect the earth and ourselves. That's it in a nutshell I think.

    Kinda funny, to me at least. Also of note, that they seem to be mostly opposing viewpoints.

    Those that strongly believe in the global warming thing are really no different than those that believe the religion thing. Both place their belief in faith. Faith that the scientists are correct in the theories and faith that God does exist.

    The similiarity just struck me as funny.
    interesting observation, woof!
  3.    #163  
    clulip, I absolutely do not trust the United Nations. I feel they are incredibly inept and it starts at the top. You quoting the UN is not much better than quoting a North Korean on human rights. They have no creditability.
  4. #164  
    "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death
    by RONALD BAILEY (Editor), Competitive Enterprise Institute "No global climate disaster is looming..." (more) "

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0761...20#reader-page

    just thought this was interesting

    You have heard the liberal side of this issue, now for the other side :
    several good articles found in the link below

    http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...alwarming.html
    Last edited by treobk214; 02/22/2005 at 01:11 AM.
  5. #165  
    http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...iani051904.htm

    this is also an interesting take on the situation, given the attacks on the US as one of the chief offendors here. according to this article, we find canada ands australia to be among the leading emitters of carbon dioxide gases into the atmosphere.
    realize that this is not a scientific journal, but I believe the points made here are quite interesting as well. is this just another example of liberal agenda and fear-mongering, or real science? makes you wonder doesn't it?

    http://globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900
    Last edited by treobk214; 02/22/2005 at 01:34 AM.
  6. #166  
    http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1240&id=68


    The June issue of Scientific American highlighted some research results out of Columbia University. Recently, Professor Richard Wilson published a peer-reviewed article in the journal Geophysical Research Letters where he reported the results of his studies on the amount of solar energy that our sun has been producing over the last 24 years. During this time period, the amount of energy the sun is producing has increased by 0.05% every 10 years

    It appears that the issue of global warming is a bit more complicated than those in the major media outlets and the environmentalist organizations would want us to believe. It also appears that our "fragile ecosystem" is a bit more robust than they would have us believe.

    But I wouldn't count on hearing a report on this during the evening news. And I also wouldn't count on hearing any apologies from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club for their statements in the past ridiculing President Bush's decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. And I haven't heard of any new statements from them welcoming more research into this interesting topic.


    http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/cliches/sun.html

    Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

    IM SURE CLULUP WILL BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THIS BELOW!

    --->A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.<---

    Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

    "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

    Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact
    Last edited by treobk214; 02/22/2005 at 01:19 AM.
  7. #167  
    http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5680

    It turns out that greenhouse politics suffers from a tendency to exaggerate. Environmental activists use worst-case scenarios that reflect their own biases to raise funds to support their causes. Politicians have a vested interest in citizens’ believing in catastrophic scenarios that make it easier to levy new taxes, since guilt or uncertain risks make them more willing to surrender more of their income.

    While the perceptions of the general public are influenced by these biases, rising incomes also lead to increased demand for higher environmental quality. there has been a misperception that environmental quality is worsening when it may actually be improving or perhaps remaining unchanged.

    http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=2004


    Most media reports ignore the evidence for cooling and focus instead on records from land stations, which indicate a 1°F increase in surface temperatures during the 20th century. What they fail to report is that this increase was measured mostly in and around urban centers, and therefore indicates urban--not global--warming

    Also left unreported is the fact that 90 percent of this 1°F urban warming occurred before 1940. If carbon dioxide emitted by industries and cars was causing this warming, should not most of the increase in temperature have occurred after 1940, when industries and cars became more plentiful and, consequently, carbon emissions increased significantly?

    Even more interesting, but also left unreported, is the fact that from 1946 until 1975, while industrialization expanded and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased, urban surface temperatures actually cooled. At the time, many in the media feared a new ice age.

    Such facts throw into question the belief that global warming exists and that industrialization is affecting the earth's temperature. Nevertheless, the New York Times recently stated: "Human activity is the dominant force behind . . . global warming."

    If man is not the cause of climate change, what is?

    Dr. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences and former director of the National Weather Satellite Service, explains that climate change is a natural phenomenon, which has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. Ice core samples from the Arctic, for example, show an 18ºF temperature variation during the last 160,000 years. Dr. Singer further notes that solar activity greatly affects the temperatures and the climate on earth.

    But most reports in the media ignore the existence of dissenting views such as Dr. Singer's. According to Scientific American, "few scientists doubt the atmosphere is warming." Time magazine bluntly claims: "Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening


    If you want to know the truth about global warming--or acid rain, or the ozone hole, or any other environmental issue--you must keep in mind that the media are not giving you the true story. And the reason for that is very simple. They are reporting on the world as they see it: distorted through green lenses.
    Last edited by treobk214; 02/22/2005 at 01:37 AM.
  8. #168  
    http://www.alphalink.com.au/~noelmcd...k/globalwm.htm

    this is an older article, but interesting.

    Statement by Atmospheric Scientists


    on Greenhouse Warming


    WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992---As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

    Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.

    A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

    Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

    Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

    We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.

    David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

    Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center


    Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.
    Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University
    Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
    Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist, the list goes on..

    i know the above posts have been a bit much, but i felt they were relevant to the opposing views on this issue.
  9. #169  
    Here is another article from NewScientist.com that mentions solar events:
    There is also room for uncertainty in inferences drawn from the rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The warming itself is real enough, but that doesn't necessarily mean that human activity is to blame. Sceptics say that the warming could be natural, and again they have a point. It is now recognised that up to 40 per cent of the climatic variation since 1890 is probably due to two natural phenomena. The first is solar cycles, which influence the amount of radiation reaching the Earth, and some scientist have argued that increased solar activity can account for most of the warming of the past 150 years. The second is the changing frequency of volcanic eruptions, which produce airborne particles that can shade and hence cool the planet for a year or more. This does not mean, however, that the sceptics can claim victory, as no known natural effects can explain the 0.5 °C warming seen in the past 30 years. In fact, natural changes alone would have caused a marginal global cooling (see Graph).
    Before anyone goes on claiming this is some anti-Environmental article, it is largely supportive of Global Warming, yet looks into skeptical/opposing views, and tries to answer them, in an honest way.

    Also, Dr. Richard Lindzen, a professor at M.I.T. on "consensus"
    With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics.
    It should be noted that Dr. Lindzen is viewed as one of those corrupted heretics.
    Here are a few more excerpts of his.
    (1) The data currently represented as "consensus," even if correct, do not imply alarm. However, where the consensus view is too benign, the opposite of the real consensus is claimed to be the consensus. In much current research, "alarm" is the aim rather than the result.

    (2) The scientific community is committed to the maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct (they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible.

    (3) No regulatory solution to the "problem" of preventing increases in CO2 is available, but the ubiquity of CO2 emissions--which are associated with industry and life itself--remains a tempting target for those with a regulatory instinct who have always been attracted to the energy sector.

    (4) Resistance to such temptations will require more courage and understanding than are currently found in major industrial or governmental players who largely accept what is presented as the consensus view. The main victims of any proactive policies are likely to be consumers, and they have little concentrated influence. As usual, they have long been co-opted by organizations like Consumers Union that now actively support Kyoto
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  10. #170  
    nice find, insertion. puts a rather different perspective on such a "cut and dry" issue now, doesn't it?

    " life is easy " chew on that a while, clulup.
  11. #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    nice find, insertion. puts a rather different perspective on such a "cut and dry" issue now, doesn't it?

    " life is easy " chew on that a while, clulup.
    And that is my point. I'm not here to say the Earth is or is not heating up. I just question the notion that Man is the devil in this case. I firmly believe that these events are a natural occurring phenomena. Does man contribute? Perhaps. However, if we go back in time, we would witness temperatures higher than now, as well as ice ages. All before Man, much less and Industrial Man were in exsitence.

    We can just go back in American history to the 1930's. It was known as "The Dust Bowl" because large parts of the country were basically turned into desert due to climatic changes. Why? And why did the climate return to "normal" conditions afterwards? There wasn't a Kyoto agreement or "consensus."
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #172  
    And before I forget:
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Oh, Insertion, one more thing - I guess you were right, after re-reading one of my last posts I realized it really sounded a bit condescending. Sorry about that!
    Apology accepted!
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Here is another article from NewScientist.com that mentions solar events:
    Before anyone goes on claiming this is some anti-Environmental article, it is largely supportive of Global Warming
    Interesting article, because it indeed supports the notion that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming:

    "These uncontested facts are enough to establish that "anthropogenic" greenhouse gas emissions are tending to make the atmosphere warmer. What's more, there is little doubt that the climate is changing right now. Temperature records from around the world going back 150 years suggest that 19 of the 20 warmest years - measured in terms of average global temperature, which takes account of all available thermometer data - have occurred since 1980, and that four of these occurred in the past seven years (see Graph).

    "The only serious question mark over this record is the possibility that measurements have been biased by the growth of cities near the sites where temperatures are measured, as cities retain more heat than rural areas. But some new research suggests there is no such bias. David Parker of the UK's Met Office divided the historical temperature data into two sets: one taken in calm weather and the other in windy weather. He reasoned that any effect due to nearby cities would be more pronounced in calm conditions, when the wind could not disperse the heat. There was no difference."

    "There is also room for uncertainty .... This does not mean, however, that the sceptics can claim victory, as no known natural effects can explain the 0.5 °C warming seen in the past 30 years.

    "In the face of such evidence, the vast majority of scientists, even sceptical ones, now agree that our activities are making the planet warmer, and that we can expect more warming as we release more CO2 into the atmosphere."



    Thank you Insertion, for posting this article which largely supports the reports I have quoted so far, e.g. the consensus report of the US National Academy of Sciences.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    http://www.alphalink.com.au/~noelmcd...k/globalwm.htm

    this is an older article, but interesting.
    Thank you, too, treobk214, intereting article, but 13 years old and totally outdated.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    Most media reports ignore the evidence for cooling and focus instead on records from land stations, which indicate a 1°F increase in surface temperatures during the 20th century. What they fail to report is that this increase was measured mostly in and around urban centers, and therefore indicates urban--not global--warming

    Also left unreported is the fact that 90 percent of this 1°F urban warming occurred before 1940. If carbon dioxide emitted by industries and cars was causing this warming, should not most of the increase in temperature have occurred after 1940, when industries and cars became more plentiful and, consequently, carbon emissions increased significantly?

    Even more interesting, but also left unreported, is the fact that from 1946 until 1975, while industrialization expanded and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased, urban surface temperatures actually cooled. At the time, many in the media feared a new ice age.

    Such facts throw into question the belief that global warming exists and that industrialization is affecting the earth's temperature. Nevertheless, the New York Times recently stated: "Human activity is the dominant force behind . . . global warming."
    All of this is debunked in the New Scientist article kindly provided by Insertion. Great read btw...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    All of this is debunked in the New Scientist article kindly provided by Insertion. Great read btw...
    I'm glad you liked it. As I said, it largely supports your views, however it is one of the few articles I've seen that addresses the opposing side, and doesn't pass it off as silliness. I thought it to be an honest, and fair discussion into the opposing view, with valid points on both sides.

    Food for thought.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214

    http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/cliches/sun.html


    IM SURE CLULUP WILL BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THIS BELOW!

    --->A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.<---

    Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
    Also an interesting article. Clearly, the activity of the sun plays some role, too, good science involved. However, as Prof. Solanki himself says in this Nature publication: "Solanki stresses that without fully understanding the chain of cause and effect, we cannot be sure exactly how the changing Sun impacts on our climate. Greenhouse gases, generated by burning fossil fuels and volcanic eruptions, are probably far more important in controlling the Earth's temperature, he says."

    And from the article you kindly provided:
    "Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase."
    Last edited by clulup; 02/22/2005 at 06:13 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I'm glad you liked it. As I said, it largely supports your views, however it is one of the few articles I've seen that addresses the opposing side, and doesn't pass it off as silliness. I thought it to be an honest, and fair discussion into the opposing view, with valid points on both sides.

    Food for thought.
    What I really like about science is that it is not dogmatic, there is always room and openness for new ideas and views, as long as there are results and findings of an acceptable quality which support those views. I have never seen a scientific publication which passed off opposing views as sillyness, at least not as long as the claims had a valid basis data-wise. There are, however, a large number of sites/people who dismiss scientific findings about man-made global warming as sillyness, without having valid data which say they are right and the others wrong.

    We need to keep an open mind about ALL results of climatology. However, it is just a fact that there is quite a broad consensus among scientists that global warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emission is a serious risk regarding agriculture, water supply, floods, frequencies of hurricanes, etc.

    It is true that we don't know everything about the future climate and what influences it in every detail. The problems could be smaller than predicted. But they could also be greater than scientists predict today, we don't know for sure...
    Last edited by clulup; 02/22/2005 at 03:33 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #179  
    "nd that is my point. I'm not here to say the Earth is or is not heating up. I just question the notion that Man is the devil in this case. I firmly believe that these events are a natural occurring phenomena. Does man contribute? Perhaps. However, if we go back in time, we would witness temperatures higher than now, as well as ice ages. All before Man, much less and Industrial Man were in exsitence.

    We can just go back in American history to the 1930's. It was known as "The Dust Bowl" because large parts of the country were basically turned into desert due to climatic changes. Why? And why did the climate return to "normal" conditions afterwards? There wasn't a Kyoto agreement or "consensus."

    nicely put, insertion.
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    nice find, insertion. puts a rather different perspective on such a "cut and dry" issue now, doesn't it?

    " life is easy " chew on that a while, clulup.
    I am really glad you like the New Scientist article Insertion posted, too. Finally we can agree on something. As mentioned, I also totally agree with Insertion that it offers a clear, concise, balanced and up to date evaluation of what we know about the present climate and how it will most likely develop, specially if we don't do anything about CO2 emissions. It also shows the gaps and uncertainties, and the arguments of scientists who are sceptical about global warming. It is very nicely written. Here are some paragraphs I found particularly interesting:

    "In the face of such evidence, the vast majority of scientists, even sceptical ones, now agree that our activities are making the planet warmer, and that we can expect more warming as we release more CO2 into the atmosphere."

    "The latest IPCC assessment is that doubling CO2 levels will warm the world by anything from 1.4 to 5.8 °C. In other words, this predicts a rise in global temperature from pre-industrial levels of around 14.8 °C to between 16.2 and 20.6 °C. Even at the low end, this is probably the biggest fluctuation in temperature that has occurred in the history of human civilisation."

    "Indeed, new research based on thousands of different climate simulation models run using the spare computing capacity of idling PCs, suggest that doubling CO2 levels could increase temperatures by as much as 11 °C (Nature, vol 434, p 403)."

    "Recent analysis suggests that clouds could have a more powerful warming effect than once thought - possibly much more powerful (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 44). And there could be other surprise positive feedbacks that do not yet feature in the climate models. For instance, a release of some of the huge quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that are frozen into the Siberian permafrost and the ocean floor could have a catastrophic warming effect."

    "Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic science of global warming - at least among scientists. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

    "Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal. Even sceptical scientists now accept that we can expect some warming. They differ from the rest only in that they believe most climate models overestimate the positive feedback and underestimate the negative, and they predict that warming will be at the bottom end of the IPCC's scale"



    So obviously, there is a broad consensus among the leading (also the leading US) scientists, that man-made global warming is real. Yet some of you think this is wrong, so apparently you know better... how come? Do you have some supernatural ability to predict future climate changes, or the lack thereof? Why do you know better than the scientists, who can show you their data, and who's data are constantly challenged by sceptic scientists? Are you more intelligent than they are, or do you have better data? What is it that allows you to be so sure that you are right and they are wrong?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Posting Permissions