I hate to rekindle old arguments...

[Demosthenes11]

but I just came across this and I'm curious what everyone else's opinion is on it.

This was linked to me by my gf who saw it on yahoo news or something
http://www.citizensugar.com/1093812

Which sparked my interest a little bit, so I did a little more digging and found this:
http://media.kusi.clickability.com/docu ... rming1.pdf

I know it's really long and all that stuff, but it's really fascinating, especially coming from the president of the Weather Channel. He has a lot of sound arguments in there.

Thoughts? Criticism?

[Doofus]

I agree that pollution and what not makes the environment shittier, just look at.. LA? I think it is, smog all the time.

However, when they start showing polar bears floating on a small piece of ice saying me not taking the bus is killing them, I begin laughing maniacally, and shut off to whatever else they have to say.

[Charismatic]

Obviously Global Warming is due, in part, to us silly humans.

Will suing Al Gore help matters at all? No, I don't believe it will, but it is one way of bringing a lot of attention to the issue. Probably not the only way, but definitely one way.

[Grievear]

How about the argument that Mt. St. Helens gave off more CO2 and greenhouse gases when it erupted than all of humanity in all of history? Sure we're contributing but sometimes I think they overestimate our impact. Like everything else the climate has gone through cycles before.

[Beckwin]

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated
from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different.
I know this group well. My father was a PhD-University type. I was raised in the university culture. Any person
who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PhD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more
likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of
their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are
environmentalists above all else.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and the results are in no way
alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do
research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and,
very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

Should I bother reading anymore of this guy's tripe or not? Ironically, a geography professor was among the first to tell me anything contrary to Al Gore's claims. For one, corporations give a shitton of money to universities, and this guy trying to deface highly-educated people for... being highly-educated? is laughable.

It's basically a matter of Gore presenting the worst case scenario. His documentary contains a few slip-ups. However there's no denying human impact entirely, and there's no denying that the adverse effects are indeed adverse- even if Florida won't be submerged in 50 years, global-warming causing pollution is shitty for health and environment/ecosystems.

[Charla]

Is this where I bring up the solar shade again? Being unhelpful is fun.

[Max™]

1. Paint your fucking roof white to help refect some solar energy back into space.

2. This is merely a space between ice ages.

Smokey the Tailpipe says, "Give a hoot, Pollute! 'Cause only YOU can prevent Glaciation."

[CMMeast]

Honestly, the term global warming isn't really appopriate for what's happening to the Earth right now, though I can't believe someone like the president of TWC wants to dismiss a proven phenomenon. The media and the population fixate on the effects of CO2 in the air and how it relates to rising temperatures, or on trying to disprove global warming with unfactual arguments. It's not that just an increase in T, but overall, an increase in weather patterns that leans towards extremes.

The greatest consequence of human generated pollution is the disruption of the delicate biochemical balance that allows the ocean to regulate the climate. As the pH of the ocean slowly decreases, or as it acidifies, the environmental conditions that provide for the growth of microbial communities that absorb CO2 out of the air are increasingly in decline. As part of a negative feedback loop, this just speeds up natural phenomena we are now keeping track off such as melting polar ice and increasing temperatures. With less polar ice, water is not sufficiently cooled to accept CO2 based on solubility leading to more CO2 to remain in the atmosphere and on and on. The scary thing is, there is no realistic way to break out of this loop. Ideas are floating around, but there is no defining research of positive or negative effects of large-scale environmental engineering.

EDIT: I suppose I should add this in also, IPCC, the U.N. panel on climate change, estimates that global warming will cause an average rise in T of 11.5 degrees by 2100. The last time temperatures were about 5 degrees higher than they are today, sea levels were 80 ft. higher than they are now. Add to the fact that there is no way we'll be able to model any of the phenoma present in climate change such as melting polar ice or shifting weather systems, the next 10 years are going to be very important in providing a solid foundation to even keep on living in the manner we do now.

[archibaldcrane]

When it comes to human effects on world-wide weather patterns, I say with devout conviction:

I don't know what to think.

It is, however, hard for me to get too worked up about "the great global warming hoax" that encourages people to conserve energy, find alternatives to fossil fuels, and generally all-around try not to take a huge dump on this planet.

[Xiona]

everything is a theory, no matter the evidence, when it applies to a major economy.

[Demosthenes11]

Honestly, the term global warming isn't really appopriate for what's happening to the Earth right now, though I can't believe someone like the president of TWC wants to dismiss a proven phenomenon. The media and the population fixate on the effects of CO2 in the air and how it relates to rising temperatures, or on trying to disprove global warming with unfactual arguments. It's not that just an increase in T, but overall, an increase in weather patterns that leans towards extremes.

The greatest consequence of human generated pollution is the disruption of the delicate biochemical balance that allows the ocean to regulate the climate. As the pH of the ocean slowly decreases, or as it acidifies, the environmental conditions that provide for the growth of microbial communities that absorb CO2 out of the air are increasingly in decline. As part of a negative feedback loop, this just speeds up natural phenomena we are now keeping track off such as melting polar ice and increasing temperatures. With less polar ice, water is not sufficiently cooled to accept CO2 based on solubility leading to more CO2 to remain in the atmosphere and on and on. The scary thing is, there is no realistic way to break out of this loop. Ideas are floating around, but there is no defining research of positive or negative effects of large-scale environmental engineering.

EDIT: I suppose I should add this in also, IPCC, the U.N. panel on climate change, estimates that global warming will cause an average rise in T of 11.5 degrees by 2100. The last time temperatures were about 5 degrees higher than they are today, sea levels were 80 ft. higher than they are now. Add to the fact that there is no way we'll be able to model any of the phenoma present in climate change such as melting polar ice or shifting weather systems, the next 10 years are going to be very important in providing a solid foundation to even keep on living in the manner we do now.

I don't think you read anything at all. Nobody is trying to say global warming isn't happening - the earth is warming. Just the rate and which it is and the causes / effects of it are HUGELY exaggerated. He also points out that most of the graphs and charts put out by the IPCC and the like organizations are debunked very quickly once people actually look at them, as they are full of faulty science. Read the article. I'm not saying it is or is not true, but nothing he says is out-right wrong and he does a lot of research to show why what he thinks is right.

As far as global temperatures go, I'll send you my balls in the mail of the temperature rises 5 degrees celcius in the next 100 years. You also forgot the whole estimation. Whenever climate panels make estimates, they always include a low and a high end. I remember when first learning about this stuff over a year ago they said T would increase between .1 and 5 degrees in the next 50 years. Really? You mean the earth is having a warming period after the little ice age?

Oh, and there has still never been any connection between CO2 and T

[Vistani]

How about the argument that Mt. St. Helens gave off more CO2 and greenhouse gases when it erupted than all of humanity in all of history? Sure we're contributing but sometimes I think they overestimate our impact. Like everything else the climate has gone through cycles before.

I bet you watched the great global warming swindle, didn't you?
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2006/06_10_26.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...olcano01m.html
That shit about Mt. St. Helens is just bullshit pulled out of thin air.

[Blarg]

Honestly, the term global warming isn't really appopriate for what's happening to the Earth right now, though I can't believe someone like the president of TWC wants to dismiss a proven phenomenon. The media and the population fixate on the effects of CO2 in the air and how it relates to rising temperatures, or on trying to disprove global warming with unfactual arguments. It's not that just an increase in T, but overall, an increase in weather patterns that leans towards extremes.

The greatest consequence of human generated pollution is the disruption of the delicate biochemical balance that allows the ocean to regulate the climate. As the pH of the ocean slowly decreases, or as it acidifies, the environmental conditions that provide for the growth of microbial communities that absorb CO2 out of the air are increasingly in decline. As part of a negative feedback loop, this just speeds up natural phenomena we are now keeping track off such as melting polar ice and increasing temperatures. With less polar ice, water is not sufficiently cooled to accept CO2 based on solubility leading to more CO2 to remain in the atmosphere and on and on. The scary thing is, there is no realistic way to break out of this loop. Ideas are floating around, but there is no defining research of positive or negative effects of large-scale environmental engineering.

EDIT: I suppose I should add this in also, IPCC, the U.N. panel on climate change, estimates that global warming will cause an average rise in T of 11.5 degrees by 2100. The last time temperatures were about 5 degrees higher than they are today, sea levels were 80 ft. higher than they are now. Add to the fact that there is no way we'll be able to model any of the phenoma present in climate change such as melting polar ice or shifting weather systems, the next 10 years are going to be very important in providing a solid foundation to even keep on living in the manner we do now.

I don't think you read anything at all. Nobody is trying to say global warming isn't happening - the earth is warming. Just the rate and which it is and the causes / effects of it are HUGELY exaggerated. He also points out that most of the graphs and charts put out by the IPCC and the like organizations are debunked very quickly once people actually look at them, as they are full of faulty science. Read the article. I'm not saying it is or is not true, but nothing he says is out-right wrong and he does a lot of research to show why what he thinks is right.

As far as global temperatures go, I'll send you my balls in the mail of the temperature rises 5 degrees celcius in the next 100 years. You also forgot the whole estimation. Whenever climate panels make estimates, they always include a low and a high end. I remember when first learning about this stuff over a year ago they said T would increase between .1 and 5 degrees in the next 50 years. Really? You mean the earth is having a warming period after the little ice age?

Oh, and there has still never been any connection between CO2 and T

5 degrees is more than enough to fuck the world over. A 5 degree drop in temp was enough to cause a huge ice age so you can see that relatively small numbers can have big effects.

[Demosthenes11]

but when someone says they are between 120 and 130 lbs, you dont say they weigh 130 lbs. Their "estimates" just show they have no fuckin clue whats going on, that's all I'm saying

[Maxxthepenguin]

He has a lot of sound arguments in there.

You have a strange definition of a sound argument. Firstly, he is famous not for studying weather, but reporting it in a friendly way. He starts with the paranoid rantings of the cabal of colleges, saying that anyone who has studied this subject in a recognized way has already been brainwashed. The 'hockey stick chart' is fucking unreadable in the pdf so frankly I can't even be sure of what the chart is showing. Actually, all the charts that he doesn't like are unreadable so even if he IS telling us exactly what's on them, it's hard to say and answers nothing. Unlabeled charts are 100% useless. He also focuses on the word 'warming', something that is known to be a misnomer. Our planet's weather patters are so mind-blowingly complex and hard to understand that we have a hard time predicting the next week's weather, let alone the weather of years in the future. He also seems to highlight the emotionally appealing language that supporters of the theory of global climate change and disprove that rather than all the boring stuff that is what people would pay attention to if they were going to bother care about it.

Global climate change is conjecture. It's a theory that, if true, can have tremendous impact. It has had a lot of people behind it and has been very convincing to people who know a whole lot more about this than most of us ever will (aka people who have been brainwashed in the cabal of gaining knowledge).

To sum up: FUCK THIS NOISE

[Xiona]

but when someone says they are between 120 and 130 lbs, you dont say they weigh 130 lbs. Their "estimates" just show they have no fuckin clue whats going on, that's all I'm saying

yea but if someone faced signifigant health related problems that arise from being 130+ youd say they were 130 in order to iniate some action.

people only truely change their daily routines when a sense of urgency is implimented. if you have a video of the future and all the data somehow and presented it to the world, action would still be taken at literally the last possible second. estimates are there to show you that a serious problem is here, the exact numbers only tell you when the last minute to act is.

[Semitry]

While we're on the topic of environments, anyone ever wonder where all that shit we toss out goes?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...an-778016.html

[Demosthenes11]

what the fuck is a rubbish dump lol
silly british

[Ushallbeasgods]

So even if the whole "climate change" argument is contested would anyone argue that finding an alternative to fossil fuel (a dwindling, expensive and non-renewable energy source), and conserving energy are bad things?

[Max™]

Severing our ties to Oil Companies?

No, I don't think anyone but the old men in charge of them would find anything wrong with that.