Bush changes position on Global Warming

[DeadCanDance]

The authors Singer and Avery offer us evidently don't think their research casts any doubt on anthropogenic global warming. In short, Singer and Avery are misrepresenting the conclusions of the scientists, and substituting their own conclusions.

I can't post a URL yet, but go to realclimate.org (a site run by real climate scientists) and search on "fred singer" or avery

Case in point:

Singer and Avery cite climate scientist Mauren Raymo in their book "Unstoppable Global Warming", which purports to "debunk" anthropogenic global warming.

What does climate scientist Maureen Raymo actually conclude about global warming? From her own website:

"In my opinion, the pronounced warming of the last few decades is almost certainly due to anthropogenic alterations of the composition of the atmosphere due primarily to the combustion of fossil fuel." -- Mareen Raymo

maureen raymo . com

 

[DeadCanDance]

So, in short, what you've provided us bern, is a book by two men who aren't even real climate scientists, which alleges to provide research from real climate scientists which debunk anthropogenic global warming.

When, if fact, the researchers they cite actually DO think anthropogenic global warming is real. Singer and Avery merely took these researchers work, and substituted their own uninformed opinions

 

[Bern80]

So, in short, what you've provided us bern, is a book by two men who aren't even real climate scientists, which alleges to provide research from real climate scientists which debunk anthropogenic global warming.

When, if fact, the researchers they cite actually DO think anthropogenic global warming is real. Singer and Avery merely took these researchers work, and substituted their own uninformed opinions

Which they are perfectly entitled to do and which researchers do all the time. They read other people's work and critique it. Again all they are doing is presenting an alternative view. They aren't even saying anthropogenic global warming is definatively not the reason for teh current warming trend. they are citing historic evidence that indicates there is at least one other explanation for the warming trend we are seeing. But as far as your concerned apparently its an open and shut case. Tell me again who the close minded on is.

 

[Vintij]

Look the climate has been warming and cooling since day one, billions of years ago. What Bush finally realizes, is that the current spike in temperature does not replicate past warming trends. That is basically all we know. We know that right now, we are getting warmer, faster than ever in history....but we have been this warm before just not at this rate. So in all honesty, we dont have all the data needed to prove anthropogenic climate change, but someone finally explained it to Bush in "lamens" terms so he can understand that it might turn into a threat if we dont find out more about it soon.

 

[Shogun]

we can all acknowledge that the climate of the Earth fluxuates throughout history.. thats the obvious part.


can we get to the point where we can admit that human activity has an impact?


ever have an aquarium?

 

[Superlative]

ever have an aquarium?

Too much work.

And its a waste of water flushing all those fish when they die.

Fish are good test pets. Im a bad pet owner.

 

[Shogun]

I woud invite naysayers to invest a thousand dollars in a giant reef tank without filtration and see what happens.

 

[Bern80]

we can all acknowledge that the climate of the Earth fluxuates throughout history.. thats the obvious part.


can we get to the point where we can admit that human activity has an impact?

the history of climate fluctuation is much, much, much longer than human history. Millions of years compared to, realistaclly speaking 200 yrs at most that humans have the possibility of making any measurable impact on climate. that means that that prior to say 200 yrs ago fluctuations in climate could be attributed only be attributed to naturally occurring phenomen. Think about that. 200 yrs ago all the way back to the beginning of time.

get some perspective people. I'll be really generous for arguments sake and say the earth is only say a billion yrs old. 200 yrs out of a billion is 200 millionths of earth history or .000000002%. And you're trying to convince me that if we don't change are current habits with regard to climate change we are going to irreversibly efect climate for the next million yrs? get real. This has all ready been identified as a "problem" though not proven and we are already changing our behavior anyway. So whether you believe in anthropogenic warming in the long run it is going to make absolutely zero difference.

What do you think climate scientists will really see 10,000yrs from now under two miles of ice in New York? They will see one of two things. 1) they will see a climate cycle no for our period no different than what they have seen for the last million yrs or 2) they will see the bery slightest hickup in warming where we industrialized, realized it was an issue and made improvement.

ever have an aquarium?

Am I to understand you believe we are god-like with regards to climate change?

 

[Shogun]

the history of climate fluctuation is much, much, much longer than human history. Millions of years compared to, realistaclly speaking 200 yrs at most that humans have the possibility of making any measurable impact on climate. that means that that prior to say 200 yrs ago fluctuations in climate could be attributed only be attributed to naturally occurring phenomen. Think about that. 200 yrs ago all the way back to the beginning of time.

get some perspective people. I'll be really generous for arguments sake and say the earth is only say a billion yrs old. 200 yrs out of a billion is 200 millionths of earth history or .000000002%. And you're trying to convince me that if we don't change are current habits with regard to climate change we are going to irreversibly efect climate for the next million yrs? get real. This has all ready been identified as a "problem" though not proven and we are already changing our behavior anyway. So whether you believe in anthropogenic warming in the long run it is going to make absolutely zero difference.

What do you think climate scientists will really see 10,000yrs from now under two miles of ice in New York? They will see one of two things. 1) they will see a climate cycle no for our period no different than what they have seen for the last million yrs or 2) they will see the bery slightest hickup in warming where we industrialized, realized it was an issue and made improvement.




Am I to understand you believe we are god-like with regards to climate change?

yea.. I hear that the ground that Chernobyl sat on is MILLIONS of years old too.. but I guess humans didnt impact that piece of the earth either? What the hell does the longevity of the Earth have to do with the potential for humans to impact their environment? Cant think of any other circumstances where human activity affected their Terran environment?

GODLIKE?

it takes a god to blight the land that we use daily? Im sure you are right.. burning tires every day CANT affect the environment that humans can live in on Earth... uh, because the earth is old.. or something. Apparently, millions of years before the invention of plastic means that our environment is imperveous to human impact.

The T-K boundry is just another myth too, btw.

 

[maineman]

you can't believe that spewing tons of unnatural pollutants into the finite volume of our atmpshere can possibly be a "good thing", or even a "neutral thing", can you?

do you know of any other of God's creatures that willfully shits in his nest?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Which they are perfectly entitled to do and which researchers do all the time. They read other people's work and critique it. Again all they are doing is presenting an alternative view. They aren't even saying anthropogenic global warming is definatively not the reason for teh current warming trend. they are citing historic evidence that indicates there is at least one other explanation for the warming trend we are seeing. But as far as your concerned apparently its an open and shut case. Tell me again who the close minded on is.

Which they are perfectly entitled to do and which researchers do all the time. They read other people's work and critique it. Again all they are doing is presenting an alternative view.

No way man. You're not going to slither away from your original assertion that easily.

I said that there's virtually no peer-reviewed scientific climate research that supports your position that humans are not affecting climate change. You responded that there WAS peer-reviewed scientific research that supported your position. You cited the Singer book as an example.

You were wrong. The authors Singer cites do not dispute the anthropogenic causes of current climate change. If Fred Singer wants to "read their research" and offer his own uninformed opinion, that is not peer reviewed research. That's simply an opinon from somebody who isn't even really a climate scientist.

 

[Bern80]

Which they are perfectly entitled to do and which researchers do all the time. They read other people's work and critique it. Again all they are doing is presenting an alternative view.

No way man. You're not going to slither away from your original assertion that easily.

I said that there's virtually no peer-reviewed scientific climate research that supports your position that humans are not affecting climate change. You responded that there WAS peer-reviewed scientific research that supported your position. You cited the Singer book as an example.

You were wrong. The authors Singer cites do not dispute the anthropogenic causes of current climate change. If Fred Singer wants to "read their research" and offer his own uninformed opinion, that is not peer reviewed research. That's simply an opinon from somebody who isn't even really a climate scientist.

Are you aware what an absoloute joke peer review is these days?

 

[Shogun]

.... which is your opinion?

 

[Bern80]

yea.. I hear that the ground that Chernobyl sat on is MILLIONS of years old too.. but I guess humans didnt impact that piece of the earth either? What the hell does the longevity of the Earth have to do with the potential for humans to impact their environment? Cant think of any other circumstances where human activity affected their Terran environment?

GODLIKE?

it takes a god to blight the land that we use daily? Im sure you are right.. burning tires every day CANT affect the environment that humans can live in on Earth... uh, because the earth is old.. or something. Apparently, millions of years before the invention of plastic means that our environment is imperveous to human impact.

The T-K boundry is just another myth too, btw.

You will note that i was very specific in only referring to climate change. Look at how badly you and MM need to skew what I say in order to feel good about yourselves. You take one argument I make and each and everytime you have tried to make it look like I made some absolute statement. I have never done that. So let's enter a no spin zone shall we? My assertions to date have been:

There is at least one alternative view to the anthropegenic global warming theory.

I have never stated that anthropogenic global is categorically not happening. I don't know if it is and you don't know if is.

I have also attempted to relegate this environmental debate to the topic of climate change. Shoguns' chernobyl analogy has nothing to do with this. you can talk about land blighting all you want. That's not what this thread is about. Just because I'm not sold on anthropegenic global warming doesn't mean I think man doesn't have an impact on the environment.

I have maintained that we should be stewards of the environment. We can see with our own eyes the impact of dumping sewage into a river or nuclear reactor meltdowns, or oil spills.

As i stated in the last post the past 200 yrs is the smallest blip in the course of earth history. I also believe we are more environmentally concious then we were 50, 20 or even 5 yrs ago. We are doing better by the environment everyday. Given that, answer this simple questions. 10,000 yrs from now when science climatologists look at today how will it be viewed? as some catastrophic failure that they still feel the effects of, or a very minor blip and subsequent correction in the climate cycle?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Are you aware what an absoloute joke peer review is these days?

LOL

I'll take that as an admission, that your original assertion (that peer reviewed science supports you) has now been totally debunked.

 

[Bern80]

LOL

I'll take that as an admission, that your original assertion (that peer reviewed science supports you) has now been totally debunked.

It simply means the peer reviewed crap you stand by as at the very least no better than the peer reviewed crap I've read.

and to correct you yet again the above was not my assertion. I never stated that reason it was credible was because it was peer reviewed. I just stated that many of their citations are from peer reviewed sources as well. They cited literally hundreds of soources congratulations on finding one that supports your position. Im sure i could do the exact same with yours.

 

[Shogun]

You will note that i was very specific in only referring to climate change. Look at how badly you and MM need to skew what I say in order to feel good about yourselves. You take one argument I make and each and everytime you have tried to make it look like I made some absolute statement. I have never done that. So let's enter a no spin zone shall we? My assertions to date have been:

There is at least one alternative view to the anthropegenic global warming theory.

I have never stated that anthropogenic global is categorically not happening. I don't know if it is and you don't know if is.

I have also attempted to relegate this environmental debate to the topic of climate change. Shoguns' chernobyl analogy has nothing to do with this. you can talk about land blighting all you want. That's not what this thread is about. Just because I'm not sold on anthropegenic global warming doesn't mean I think man doesn't have an impact on the environment.

I have maintained that we should be stewards of the environment. We can see with our own eyes the impact of dumping sewage into a river or nuclear reactor meltdowns, or oil spills.

As i stated in the last post the past 200 yrs is the smallest blip in the course of earth history. I also believe we are more environmentally concious then we were 50, 20 or even 5 yrs ago. We are doing better by the environment everyday. Given that, answer this simple questions. 10,000 yrs from now when science climatologists look at today how will it be viewed? as some catastrophic failure that they still feel the effects of, or a very minor blip and subsequent correction in the climate cycle?

I guess that would depend on if the dice you insist on rolling rolls craps or not. It is rediculous to insist on an alternate perspective just because YOU are of the mind that current peer review methods suck. To me, it sounds as though you simply don't like the peer reviewed results that marginalize your opinion. If IM wrong then so be it.. We will still be alive in a livable environment on earth and you and your ilk can laugh and poke fun until you've had your fill.. If YOU are wrong...

well..

at least we can always pretend that the human impact on cherlnobl says nothing about the human impact on the planet, eh?


It's hilarous to see you people try to evade specific examples like a radioactive city in russia when faced with the charge of humans impacting the Environment as if millions of years prior to the industrial revolution means that we simply cannot have a major DEVESATING impact in a mere couple hundred years...


again, the T-K boundary is also just a myth too.

 

[Bern80]

I guess that would depend on if the dice you insist on rolling rolls craps or not. It is rediculous to insist on an alternate perspective just because YOU are of the mind that current peer review methods suck. To me, it sounds as though you simply don't like the peer reviewed results that marginalize your opinion. If IM wrong then so be it.. We will still be alive in a livable environment on earth and you and your ilk can laugh and poke fun until you've had your fill.. If YOU are wrong...

well..

at least we can always pretend that the human impact on cherlnobl says nothing about the human impact on the planet, eh?


It's hilarous to see you people try to evade specific examples like a radioactive city in russia when faced with the charge of humans impacting the Environment as if millions of years prior to the industrial revolution means that we simply cannot have a major DEVESATING impact in a mere couple hundred years...


again, the T-K boundary is also just a myth too.

SHOGUN YOU AR NOT LISTENING.

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT MAN CAN NOT IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT NEGATIVELY.

I SAID THIS THREAD WAS RELEGATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH CHERNOBYL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH. DUH MAN DID INPACT THE ENVIRONMENT WITH CHERNOBYL. THAT ISN'T WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

read my last post again I never said the book was credible because it was peer reviewed. I said it also contained citations of peer reveiwed material.

My argument is no simpler than this:

I think it is down right silly, to think that in the very short amount of time this concept us been under scrutiny that the man made global warming theory is an open and shut case.

i find hilarious how blatently you need to mischaracterize what someone said in order to actually make your own argument

 

[Shogun]

We heard the same line of bullshit back when nuclear energy was being sold as gods gift to mans energy use... funny how defensive you get when faced with an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of mans ability to damage his environment..


surely, SURELY, there are no lessons to consider when crying that you think current peer review standards are shitty....


I think it is down right silly, to think that in the very short amount of time this concept us been under scrutiny that the man made global warming theory is an open and shut case.

so, a short amount of time in light of millions of earth years says exactly what? nothing. In a short amount of years the internet has revolutionized the way Americans communicate.. do you want to deny the web just because the earth has been around for milions of years without netporn?


for crying out loud... go burn a tire and tell me what, exactly, millions of earth years has to do with chemicals invented in thepast century. Does pennecilin not work because it was discovered in the last 2 seconds of earths 24 hour history too?

 

[TheStripey1]

President Bush is basically now acknowledging that global warming is real and man made. I'm not making that claim, but I find it interesting to learn what the loyal Bushies will think about this...

me too... as this seems to go directly in the face of their continued arguements that GW/CC is not man influenced... now that the bush has flipped his flop, will they as well?