Another sad article on our ocean's health...

[schulace123]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12980384#post12980384 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kannin
If he truly believed in it for reasons other than his own self interests... he would conserve. And, he does not.

ah your right they are his self interest...so that makes his self interest trying to protect the world from pollution, wow sounds like a bad self interest.

the only logical way from him to get information out is to spend....

 

[aquaman67]

I like bananas.

 

[greenbean36191]

You think that the world's scientists confirm "man made global warming" because that is what ALGORE tells you.

No, I know this because I've been following the issue for the last 16 years and I actually read the scientific literature, not just blogs or news articles. I'm not alone.

Have you noticed that he never debates... only lectures?

I don't blame him. He only stands to lose by public debates regardless of the state of the science. For one, it gives the perception that there's a scientific debate when there isn't. Public debates also open the door to to misrepresenting or completely fabricating evidence because there's no way for the audience to fact check. A lot of those arguments are pretty convincing and hard to refute unless you've actually read what the claimant is distorting and can tell what was actually said. The man is also a politician, not a scientist.

Do you cry foul that the FDA isn't holding public debates on the health risks of second hand smoke? Some of the most vocal critics of AGW like Dick Lindzen and Fred Singer would be happy to debate that too. How about the moon landing or the holocaust? Just because some people believe something isn't real doesn't mean there's a tenable counter-argument.

He tells you that the ice is melting in Greenland but, what he doesn't tell you... is that, when they discovered Greenland... over 400 years ago, IT WAS GREEN!

And the point here is? A small area was green and still is. The rest has been covered by ice for the better part of a million years. The viking settlement there also collapsed when the climate changed just a few degrees.

Have you been informed that many of the same scientists that preach "global warming" were preaching "the next ice age" 30 years ago?

No. I think we've already been over this, but from 1965-1979 there were 7 scientific publications projecting future cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Only half of the authors of those global cooling papers are still publishing. The idea of a coming ice age was a product of the media, and didn't accurately represent the state of the science. Regardless, the state of knowledge 30 years ago tells us nothing about what it is today.

Did you know that the temperature on Mars was going up just like here up until a few years ago

This was based on a 2-point regression and not from actual temperature measurements, but from calculations based on photos. Basically they picked two points and drew a line between them. Other data from the same time period shows no trend.

and now it is going down, just like here?

I don't know about Mars, but the temperature here isn't going down and hasn't been trending downwards for a long time. The data is publicly available. Audit it yourself.

 

[greenbean36191]

Scientists do have a vested interest. Most scientists are paid to find a solution to a problem but, not the ones that are studying man made global warming for the government. While I doubt very much that they are evil, or even making up facts... I do think that the fact their funding and financial well being neccessitates the need for "fuzzy math", and the ignoring of facts that would help disprove the theory that they have been charged with the task of proving.

You're trying to argue this to at least two scientists. We aren't fooled. We're familiar with the granting process and we know how our pay works. I've already explained it here. We aren't expected to get certain results and our pay doesn't depend on it.

I've yet to see this argument being made by someone who gets grants in the physical sciences because they know it's not true.

Also, look at how these vocal skeptics are making their money. Al Gore is hardly the only one making money from the "debate."

 

[Kannin]

I appreciate your responses Greenbean but, let me be clear... I was not speaking to you when I made these statements including the first one about ALGORE.

He only stands to lose by public debate because he is full of crap! If the science wasn't shaky... he would not be affraid to debate...

On this forum... I have always looked forward to your input in many threads... partly because you are a knowledgeable individual and partly because your avatar is hot... but you have shown yourself, now to be just another idiologue that argues with more than facts by comparing those who would debate you to the kooks who think the lunar landing was a hoax or worse... people like the president of Iran who have said the holocaust was made up.

There is no doubt that there has been temperature changes but, there is plenty of doubt as to the culpability of mankind. I think the globe has gone through at least 7 ice ages and each time... it got warm again. There is also no doubt that ALGORE used iffy facts and took plenty of artistic license in his movie in order to persuade people to his way of thinking.

 

[schulace123]

but you have shown yourself

he has shown himself? so he thinks a certain way and that makes him a bad person? and his opinion isn't valid?

everyone has an opinion just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them wrong....With Al Gore the only reason you don't like him is because he does not believe in what you believe in. People may say he screws with the data, but I have yet to see this. They are simple fact/data that have been found by other scientist and are very similar to his.

 

[aslavatortin]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12980199#post12980199 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kannin
Scientists do have a vested interest. Most scientists are paid to find a solution to a problem but, not the ones that are studying man made global warming for the government. While I doubt very much that they are evil, or even making up facts... I do think that the fact their funding and financial well being neccessitates the need for "fuzzy math", and the ignoring of facts that would help disprove the theory that they have been charged with the task of proving.

ALGORE is used in this debate because ALGORE has made himself the most popular spokesperson for the movement.

The problem is that we are letting the goverment try to fix this and they have never efficiently fixed anything. We give them close to 50% of our money and they throw countless billions to the ethanol industry without giving thought to it's viability and it's unintended consequences. If ethanol was the answer... it would not need to be subsidized.

They say that new drilling and exploration is only a tempory fix but, it's a fix that we need while private industry finds a better way.

"Government is not the solution to our problems... Government is the problem!"

Ronald Reagan.

While I do not believe that this movement has very much basis in fact, I have invested in green companies... because I am a right-wing capitalist and it would be fiscally unwise to not try to make some money from it.

+1, the government is not the solution to this "problem". I don't want to give up any further amount of my paycheck nor my liberty. I would actually much prefer to start taking large amounts of both back!

 

[aslavatortin]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12983444#post12983444 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by schulace123
he has shown himself? so he thinks a certain way and that makes him a bad person? and his opinion isn't valid?

everyone has an opinion just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them wrong....With Al Gore the only reason you don't like him is because he does not believe in what you believe in. People may say he screws with the data, but I have yet to see this. They are simple fact/data that have been found by other scientist and are very similar to his.

You haven't been making a whole lot of sense throughout this thread...

 

[Kannin]

Wow!!! I said he was a bad person??? I said his opinion isn't valid??? What color is your world today? Are you and I, even on the same planet?

By the way... what's the temperature up there?

 

[Kannin]

I jumped into this thread today and responded to a remark by Tang Salad on the first page. Then I read the rest of the thread and found several intelligent people discussing a very important topic. Aslavatortin, Greenbean and the guy with a shark as his avatar to name a few. I saw someone, early on attempt to discredit Aslavatortin by calling him a 50 year old right winger on his porch. Then I witnessed his rebuttal... kuttos. I've seen more insight, than ignorance but, mostly... just healthy debate. This thread has kept me coming back to my computer all day.

I would just ask that you pay attention to the arguement... so that your contribution is valuable.

I didn't say that Greenbean was a bad person... or that he is not entitled to his opinion. I just pointed out that he had deviated from his normal M.O...

 

[hahnmeister]

Truth is, nobody can PROVE global warming exists. Much of the 'you cant prove global warming' debate came from the US government (when Clinton realized that Congress would never go for getting into the Kyoto protocol), as well as the oil companies. Just like the recent 'my Hummer is more environmental than your Prius' argument (which was then debunked by many major research institutions like MIT), if you trace the funding to the source, you will find out that those put into positions to claim 'global warming is a myth' have never even done an actual scientific paper on the subject. In a recent research ON research (Ill dig up the exact report... I read it recently and it will take me a little to find), 10,000 scientific papers from the past 7 years on the environment were sampled. This sampling represents about 10% of the current research in the world. Of them, not one sided with the 'anti-global-warming' ideas.

Recently, some of the oil companies have pulled funding from these organizations (some that they themselves created in the first place to fund research against global warming). I think only Exxon-Mobil still spends billions on the 'anti-global warming' marketing.

Its simple for me. Sure, you cant prove global warming, but do we really want to risk it and find out we are wrong, and that we picked the wrong side? I think conservatives love 'global warming' more than liberals (if thats how you think it breaks down across political lines), because its the only environmental issue they can seemingly win with a simple argument or two. I think environmentalists picked the wrong battle on this one though, and have allowed themselves to be baited into an argument that they really cant win. They could have picked one of a hundred other reasons for concern with the environment, oceanic acidification, global dimming, acid rain, smog, etc... and their cause would have been easy to justify, end of story.

I think its also sort of funny how most of the 'you cant prove global warming exists' people are midwesterners (and of course Americans, because we are the target audience for the anti-global warming propaganda) who havent really seen any huge environmental changes in their lifetime. Perhaps some older fisherman around the Great Lakes or on the big rivers might tell you about when they could eat what they caught... but on a daily basis, we see little of the impact compared to those who live on the shores... places where a mojority of the protein consumed comes from the ocean, or where one can dive into the ocean and see first hand what is going on. We dont realize that 50%+ of the oxygen we breathe is produced by phytoplankton... "out of sight, out of mind."

I love the rising cost of oil actually. I hear $7 a gallon by 2010. I think this, along with the awareness that pumping $1 billion a day into the middle east for 1/3 of our oil ISNT good for national security will provide the incentives needed to migrate to other technologies. As for what it will be, I bet it will be mostly electric, with bio-diesel and hydrogen fuel cells (in a battery form though, not for combustion) will be the solution. 80% of all daily commutes are under 50 miles. So with series/plug-in hybrids of a 50 mile range, 80% of the nation could get away with no oil (for transportation)use on a daily basis. If one could plug in at work to charge, this would mean 100 miles and over 90% of all daily commutes would be electric. Now I have heard all the 'were just transferring the demand to the electric grid' arguments, and this simply isnt true.

Most users would charge after work, overnight, when many turbines are shut off from their 'peak use' during the day. For the entire US to charge their cars overnight would require NO additional power plants, simply leaving the existing ones on longer. Also, many do not realize how much more efficient electric motors are compared to gas/combustion which are only about 10-15% at best at getting all the potential energy from gas. Many electrics are upwards of 90% efficient at using the stored energy in a battery. This is the idea behind the 'GM volt' concept car. The car is really driven by electric motors in the wheels, and a battery that you can plug and be 100% electric for the first 50 miles. Really, its 100% electric forever though. When the battery runs out, the gas generator comes on, but it runs at peak efficiency (gas engines are much more efficient when designed and run at only one speed, unlike how most cars are now). Then this generator charges the batteries and you keep going. Because the gas engine can be tuned for peak efficiency (a narrow torque peak, low hp, etc), it can in turn translate into 2-3x the gas efficiency by letting the electric motors translate that to the pavement. Also, charging a car for the first 50 miles like that would only use about $.50-1.00 in electricity... less energy than running a 10,000BTU AC overnight. So as you can see, electric is a win-win all around. Auto makers dread the 100% electric car (why GM killed the EV1) because it means they lose their additional income from parts and service down the road (VW boasts this division to be one of their best performing, but advertising this openly to the public might raise concern for their reliability). The bigger the engine, the more can go wrong too, so Hummers are more profitable in parts and upkeep. An electric car has no gearbox (flat torque from 0-12,000 rpm), no distributor, no alternator, no sparkplugs, no oil, etc... the only upkeep is the brakes (and the motors in the wheels use regenerative/magnetic braking to recharge the batteries a little and offset alot of the wear on the brakes) and replacing the tires. The electric cells get checked and replaced as needed, perhaps evern 100,000 miles... but its a huge hit to take considering a $30,000 car often generates another $20k in parts and upkeep over 5 years. Electric motors dont experience wear and tear either... you could go a million miles and never change a thing. None the less, Nissan, Renault, and now Mitsubishi have all promised 100% electric cars by 2010 (and some cool ones too). This joins cars like the Tesla, Lightning, Fisker Karma, Venture One, ZAP Alias, and other smaller electric car companies to really make it mainstream. Nissan wants to introduce the Maxim (look it up, it looks cool even) in 2010. The goals are 250-350 mile range (depends on the tech by the time it comes out, but they are looking at A123 and nanosafe batteries right now), 0-60 in 5 seconds (oh, yeah, the flat torque response of electric motors makes them wicked fast.... like the Wrightspeed X1), $25,000 cost, 10 minute recharge, and a LIFETIME warranty. Wicked. I predict that unless your gas driven car gets 40mpg or better, it will be up on blocks in 5 years.

So, environmental debates aside, I think automobile output can be taken off the 'list of concerns' in years to come. There are people right now who charge their cars on solar panels after all (look on Tesla's site for one example) so their cars are true zero impact.

 

[greenbean36191]

I appreciate your responses Greenbean but, let me be clear... I was not speaking to you when I made these statements including the first one about ALGORE.

I realize that. However, you made a sweeping generalization that Al Gore has duped everyone into believing this issue when in fact many people are well-read in the actual primary literature and had already accepted the evidence long before Gore started to present it.

those who would debate you to the kooks who think the lunar landing was a hoax or worse... people like the president of Iran who have said the holocaust was made up.

The evidence is equally certain. Some people would have you believe that there's evidence on both sides and huge holes in the theory that make it nothing more than an educated guess. That is not at all what you find when you read the scientific literature rather than blogs. The media is NOT in any way, shape, or form a reflection of the state of science.

I'm a regular reader of Marc Moreno's blog because I like to see how inventive he can be when he misrepresents science. It's a great way to stay current on which argument will be the flavor of the week. You see almost weekly, reports such as the ARGOS data touted as the "nail in the coffin for global warming." In fact if you read the report, the data is inconclusive. Claims like that just play on people's ignorance of the certainty in scientific theories and what it takes to overturn one. He makes nearly all of the common arguments against AGW and he can get away with it because he knows that 99% of his readers will never take the time to read and scrutinize the actual papers behind the news articles and press releases he links to. Time and time again skeptics like him play on logical fallacy, ignorance of statistics, misrepresentation of work, and general ignorance of science and the body of work. These are the same tactics used to argue against the danger of second hand smoke, evolution, the holocaust, and the moon landing and are the reasons that no one stands to do anything but hurt themselves by publicly debating global warming.

There is no doubt that there has been temperature changes but, there is plenty of doubt as to the culpability of mankind.

There is doubt in the sense that there are doubters, even including scientists. There is no reasonable, scientific doubt though that the climate is changing and that human actions have contributed to that change. Simply being a scientist that doubts does not constitute a scientific argument against. Even skeptics like John Cristie now acknowledge that it's indisputable that humans are having an impact- he just doesn't think it's a bad thing .

There is significant disagreement over how much of the current trend we're responsible for, how far it will go, and what it will mean for us.

I think the globe has gone through at least 7 ice ages and each time... it got warm again.

This proves nothing about the current trend. Each ice age had a different cause for the beginning, end, and duration. The fact that changes occurred before does not constitute evidence that we cannot cause changes in addition to or in opposition of those that would occur naturally. In fact, one of those 1970's papers argued that we were on the verge of an ice age, not based on current trends, but based on historical patterns in ice ages- i.e. we're about due for an ice age.

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12980309#post12980309 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tang Salad
Nice. I haven't seen sarcasm used like that since Junior High School.

Really...? I can pull several quotes of yours from this very thread if you need a refresher. :lol:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12980309#post12980309 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tang Salad
I took this to mean that you maintain that scientists are unable to measure solar radiation reaching the earth. I pointed out that this is easily done.

So what were you saying there?

You convieniently overlooked the operative word..."accurately".

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12980019#post12980019 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black :lol:

Touche.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12979631#post12979631 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
While not everyone here arguing against the idea of anthropomorphic global warming is saying we don't have other pollution issues, there are some that seem to be saying we don't have any effect at all.

I'm still hoping for an example.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12980019#post12980019 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
The claim is that our man made contribution of greenhouse gases is effecting the speed of that cycle and quite likely will influence the top end as well as the duration of it. No one (at least in the scientific community) has claimed we caused the cycle.

Okay...I can accept that. Sounds fairly reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than "Manhattan will be under water in 20 yrs." or was it Long Island, I don't remember Bill. Let's move on to the larger argument:
I...for one, think it's wrong to completely overturn our status quo for the supposition that our possible contribution of greenhouse gas is affecting an already naturally occurring cycle.
I'm CERTAINLY opposed to using the black glove of government to "fix" the problem. It makes me question motives when the very people that have been wailing and moaning about the current admin. for the past seven years are so eager to employ the same system for what amounts to, in large part, wealth redistribution. If the free market sees a solution to the problem then I think that alone should be relied on. Us knuckle draggers get a feeling that this issue is nothing more than a handle being used for ulterior motives. something akin to a bill of goods.
Uttering like this don't help:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12983861#post12983861 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
I love the rising cost of oil actually. I hear $7 a gallon by 2010.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12983861#post12983861 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Its simple for me. Sure, you cant prove global warming, but do we really want to risk it and find out we are wrong, and that we picked the wrong side?

Ummm...? That sounds like my pentecostal grandmothers justification for her religion. Ironic huh?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12983861#post12983861 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
global dimming

Oh jeez...how much is that gonna cost us? :rolleye1:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12984309#post12984309 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
no one stands to do anything but hurt themselves by publicly debating global warming.

How Stalinesque of you.
I'm sure you would appreciate the opinion that science is infallible and shouldn't be questioned (there's that religion angle again).

 

[hahnmeister]

virginiadiver69, I think you will find many people's reason for religion all together is their fear of the unknown, as in 'what happens to them after they die? Nothing new about that.

I have dont research papers on the economics of environmentalism. Many economies that just adopt being pro-environmental have actually ended up ahead in the end. Germany for instance, is now an international leader in solar power and research in this field... thanks to their liberal energy policy. 'Going Green' doesnt have to cost us anything... rather, it SHOULD be seen as the next 'big boom' economic segment for the US. Green Collar jobs could be the next big thing... if we only let it. The reason for the 'disbelief' came from the fears that adopting progressive environmental laws would hurt our economy. Since then, the game has changed, and many companies have switched sides. Perhaps being able to harvest our own energy with solar, wind, etc... is better than paying someone else for oil. It restores 'personal liberty' because you can be in control of your own means of energy production.

Global Dimming is proven though... and caused by all the crap (CO2 and more) in burning oil. It traps heat in the upper atmosphere, yet blocks sunlight from reaching the surface. Its been proven by looking at the international evaporation rate (something farmers have been keeping track of for a hundred years).

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12983861#post12983861 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
do we really want to risk it and find out we are wrong, and that we picked the wrong side?

Sounds like a little "fear of the unknown to me".

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12985192#post12985192 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Global Dimming is proven though...

As proven as global warming?
Besides...I was just asking what the bill is gonna be for that crises.
Did anybody else hear the profit Al blame the wild fires and mid west flooding on global warming yesterday.
This guy needs a straight jacket and lobotomy. :wildone: :hmm5:
Even the wackos are starting to look at him sideways.
OH...and he referenced the "stolen" election... again. I wonder if Tipper has to cuddle him when he wakes up after having a night terror. Does she apply a cold cloth to his forehead as he mumbles "I was robbed" over and over again and softly sobs into his pillow. :lol:
Poor guy.

 

[hahnmeister]

Proven? Well, if you have the time to watch:

http://www.documentary-film.net/search/sample.php

 

[Nicholas89]

the introduction to that film alone looks like one giant scare tactic.

example...the massive unnecessary explosions.

 

[greenbean36191]

How Stalinesque of you.
I'm sure you would appreciate the opinion that science is infallible and shouldn't be questioned (there's that religion angle again).

Huh? Sometimes I wonder if you actually read what I've said. I never said or implied anything about science being infallible. It's frequently wrong, but it's also self-correcting. You can't publish anything without it being heavily questioned. If other people can't reproduce your results or they spot outcome-changing errors, they publish a response. Proving a competing scientist or the prevailing hypothesis wrong is a great way to make a name for yourself. The debate already takes place in the literature. Public debate just opens the door for misrepresentation of evidence, preying on ignorance, and general obfuscation.

How appropriate would it be to have someone come into science classrooms and debate whether Earth or the sun is the center of the solar system? Apparently about 1/5 of Americans believe it's the earth and some people have tried to use science to argue (in modern times) that this is the case. Does having someone arguing that belief further the understanding of the actual state of science on the issue or just create undue doubt in the minds of the listeners?

There's a time and place for everything. The scientific literature is the place for scientific debate, not the town auditorium.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12984994#post12984994 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
I'm still hoping for an example.

It's popped up with a couple of posters in some of the different threads on the topic. I'd go digging for the quotes for you, but quite frankly I don't have the time to that and keep up with other things

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12984994#post12984994 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Okay...I can accept that. Sounds fairly reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than "Manhattan will be under water in 20 yrs." or was it Long Island, I don't remember Bill. Let's move on to the larger argument:
I...for one, think it's wrong to completely overturn our status quo for the supposition that our possible contribution of greenhouse gas is affecting an already naturally occurring cycle.

Not bad, we've actually come to an agreement on one point The last point, though, I think we'll have to agree to disagree As for Manhattan or LI being underwater first, if you discount NYC's skyscrapers than LI has areas of considerably higher natural elevation along the glacial moraines. So Manhattan will go underwater before LI, though enough areas of LI will go under to give me water front property Hmm, maybe I should push greenhouse gass emissions :lol:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12984994#post12984994 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
If the free market sees a solution to the problem then I think that alone should be relied on.

Ahh, yes, the same free market that had GE dumping tons of PCB's into the Hudson river. Enough so that there are still high levels of PCB's in Striped Bass and even Oceanic fish like Swordfish. Not to mention high levels of mecury in our oceans fish from pollution of industry. Those pollutants aren't there because it was the smart thing to dump them in the water, but because it was the cheap thing for the bottom line. That's the free market for you BTW I don't have much more faith in the Gov't either.