Interesting Global Warming Battle

[ylexot]

Currently, the Senate is holding hearings on global warming and there are some interesting articles:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061206-112922-6839r.htm
http://newsbusters.org/stories/cnn_anchor_falls_asleep.html
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=77195

"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

 

[truby20]

Currently, the Senate is holding hearings on global warming and there are some interesting articles:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061206-112922-6839r.htm
http://newsbusters.org/stories/cnn_anchor_falls_asleep.html
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=77195

Funny how this soon to be former Chairman who called these witness to testify before this last meeting, Jim Inhorfe, has this distinction:

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2004 election cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

And I just LOVE his views on Homosexuality:

... my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.

I'm so sorry to see this guy lose his leadership post....

 

[ylexot]

Way to discuss the issue

 

[Hessian]

Don't take it hard Ylex...

Look at the tag line: "Fighting like a girl"

you failed to include some element of emotion or social element in your posting so...she saw the need and fixed it for you.

Those desiring to post scientific analysis on global warming, please find some way to include emotions, fuzzy animals, or homosexuals.

 

[LordStanley]

How about that record hurricane season......

 

[itsbob]

The Earth warms and cools cyclically, if this wasn't the case we wouldn't be finding airplanes from WWII in the melting Glaciers. When we find an airplane or an artifact from the past in a glacier, then we have to believe that the earth was warm enough in the past for the glacier to be this size for the plane, the caveman, the mammoth to be there. The plane didn't dig in after it landed, it was on the surface, and if we find a plane from 1943 in the melting ice, then guess what, that's where the ice was in 1943.

I still like my Penguin Analogy.. and think we aren't warming as much as we are "normalizing", and to catch up to the penguins we have a LOT of warming still to do.

 

[truby20]

Way to discuss the issue

We have been having this same "discussion" for TWO years!

My response to Lenny who was trying to link the Ozone Hole to the global warming argument

Jim Inhorfe is obviously being bought out by big oil so I was just pointing that out. He having the Chairman position for the Environment and Public Works Committee seems so typical of the current Congress.

Thank God those days are over!

 

[ylexot]

We have been having this same "discussion" for TWO years!

And you've been oh-so-convincing

My response to Lenny who was trying to link the Ozone Hole to the global warming argument

And that has what to do with the Medieval Warming Period? Did you even read the quote or do you automatically dismiss anyone who might question global warming and the underlying causes?

Jim Inhorfe is obviously being bought out by big oil so I was just pointing that out. He having the Chairman position for the Environment and Public Works Committee seems so typical of the current Congress.

Sorry, I forgot that oil companies cannot question anything because the are PURE EVIL!

Thank God those days are over!

Yeah, now we'll have endless committee meetings to discuss other useless things.

 

[MMDad]

We have been having this same "discussion" for TWO years!

My response to Lenny who was trying to link the Ozone Hole to the global warming argument

Jim Inhorfe is obviously being bought out by big oil so I was just pointing that out. He having the Chairman position for the Environment and Public Works Committee seems so typical of the current Congress.

Thank God those days are over!

So why bring up the divorce/homosexual point? Does the fact that he beleives in strong family values make him a bad person?

Your argument was valid if you stuck to the oil company influence, but as soon as you threw in the family values quote your credibility went to zero.

 

[PsyOps]

I once heard an interview of a climatologist on NBC a while back. I forgot his name but he actually said that while going through global warming it may actually cause the globe to cool ............................................................................................................................................................................................

The guy interviewing him didn’t even challenge him. He just did the old grab-the-chin-in-concentrative-interest and said a lot of hmmmms……..

Hurricane season this year was a flop (sorry Algore). We are currently experiencing one of the coldest falls in years and, by cracky, I’m freezing my dockers off. But the democrats have been elected as the majority now. You can be sure global warming is in full swing.

 

[dck4shrt]

I once heard an interview of a climatologist on NBC a while back. I forgot his name but he actually said that while going through global warming it may actually cause the globe to cool ............................................................................................................................................................................................

The guy interviewing him didn’t even challenge him. He just did the old grab-the-chin-in-concentrative-interest and said a lot of hmmmms……..

Hurricane season this year was a flop (sorry Algore). We are currently experiencing one of the coldest falls in years and, by cracky, I’m freezing my dockers off. But the democrats have been elected as the majority now. You can be sure global warming is in full swing.

Not to point you out specifcally, but it is much more helpful when everyone refer to this debate as "global climate change". It's never been about one day or one year being warmer than the next. It's about global averages that are imperceptible to casual observers. Local, regional, and global average temperatures have always varied through time. The debate is (should be)whether or not that variation is different across spatial and temporal scales as compared to previous time periods.

The problem with both sides of this argument is that it has been overcrowded by advocates. Advocates know the answer and then proceed to look for evidence to support that answer. On the other hand, a scientist will ask the natural world how much support there is for COMPETING hypotheses.

 

[2ndAmendment]

We have been having this same "discussion" for TWO years!

My response to Lenny who was trying to link the Ozone Hole to the global warming argument

Jim Inhorfe is obviously being bought out by big oil so I was just pointing that out. He having the Chairman position for the Environment and Public Works Committee seems so typical of the current Congress.

Thank God those days are over!

If you hate the oil companies so much, please do not spend any of your money on any of their products. Use absolutely no products derived in any way from oil or where oil or energy from oil is used. After you are homeless, nude, and hungry for a while, come back and tell us how do you feel about oil companies.

 

[ylexot]

Not to point you out specifcally, but it is much more helpful when everyone refer to this debate as "global climate change". It's never been about one day or one year being warmer than the next. It's about global averages that are imperceptible to casual observers. Local, regional, and global average temperatures have always varied through time. The debate is (should be)whether or not that variation is different across spatial and temporal scales as compared to previous time periods.

The problem with both sides of this argument is that it has been overcrowded by advocates. Advocates know the answer and then proceed to look for evidence to support that answer. On the other hand, a scientist will ask the natural world how much support there is for COMPETING hypotheses.

I agree with that. Furthermore, there is the question of the source of "global climate change". Is it occurring naturally or is it significantly affected by human activity? That question is critical when it comes to "what do we do about it?"

 

[dck4shrt]

I agree with that. Furthermore, there is the question of the source of "global climate change". Is it occurring naturally or is it significantly affected by human activity? That question is critical when it comes to "what do we do about it?"

You're right about figuring out if we even need to answer the critical question of "what do we do about it?" as it relates to sources. It will be impossible to prove without a doubt one way or the other what the sources are (natural vs. human) because we can't conduct a controlled, replicated experiment on the earth. We can only evaluate the time series data that is out there and how it is parameterized into various models (i.e. a climate model with and without human influences).

 

[PsyOps]

Not to point you out specifcally, but it is much more helpful when everyone refer to this debate as "global climate change". It's never been about one day or one year being warmer than the next. It's about global averages that are imperceptible to casual observers. Local, regional, and global average temperatures have always varied through time. The debate is (should be)whether or not that variation is different across spatial and temporal scales as compared to previous time periods.

The problem with both sides of this argument is that it has been overcrowded by advocates. Advocates know the answer and then proceed to look for evidence to support that answer. On the other hand, a scientist will ask the natural world how much support there is for COMPETING hypotheses.

Call it what you want: “Global Warming”, “Global Climate Change”, they both mean the same thing in terms of the originated discussion. In fact in the context of the provided links by ylexot, Global Warming is more accurate. You are correct though… It’s not about one day or one year or even 100 years or 1000 years. We have not been gathering enough real data nearly long enough to determine anything about climate change let alone the effects of humans on the global climate. Since there is no real baseline data to that effect the entire argument for the global warmests are based on computer models which I find potentially deceptive and manipulatable, thus making it unprovable.

This doesn’t mean I believe we shouldn’t study these potential phenomena. But we shouldn’t do it with an alarmist mentality as we see with the likes of Al Gore and RFK Jr. You remember RFK Jr. accusing Bush of actually causing hurricane Katrina because he refused to sign on to the Kyoto Accord?

 

[PsyOps]

I agree with that. Furthermore, there is the question of the source of "global climate change". Is it occurring naturally or is it significantly affected by human activity? That question is critical when it comes to "what do we do about it?"

What do you mean what do we do about it? Have you ever considered that if we are capable of causing global warming we are equally capable of causing global cooling? What if we go too far with trying to eradicate global warming and actually put ourselves into another ice age? Do we then try to reverse that? Are we really nature’s balance in the force? NO! What if we try to stop global warming and it turns out we were wrong; that we weren’t really the cause of global warming; that it was actually a natural phenomenon and we stepped in and disturbed the natural balance of things? What do we do about it? Well, quite frankly not a whole lot; because the earth has been taking care of itself for a long time and will continue to. Oh, we can try, but the earth is still going to do what it’s going to do.

 

[ylexot]

What do you mean what do we do about it? Have you ever considered that if we are capable of causing global warming we are equally capable of causing global cooling? What if we go too far with trying to eradicate global warming and actually put ourselves into another ice age? Do we then try to reverse that? Are we really nature’s balance in the force? NO! What if we try to stop global warming and it turns out we were wrong; that we weren’t really the cause of global warming; that it was actually a natural phenomenon and we stepped in and disturbed the natural balance of things? What do we do about it? Well, quite frankly not a whole lot; because the earth has been taking care of itself for a long time and will continue to. Oh, we can try, but the earth is still going to do what it’s going to do.

Read my post again.

 

[Otter]

The Earth warms and cools cyclically, if this wasn't the case we wouldn't be finding airplanes from WWII in the melting Glaciers. When we find an airplane or an artifact from the past in a glacier, then we have to believe that the earth was warm enough in the past for the glacier to be this size for the plane, the caveman, the mammoth to be there. The plane didn't dig in after it landed, it was on the surface, and if we find a plane from 1943 in the melting ice, then guess what, that's where the ice was in 1943.

I still like my Penguin Analogy.. and think we aren't warming as much as we are "normalizing", and to catch up to the penguins we have a LOT of warming still to do.

Glaciers flow like rivers, a plane will slowly sink into a glacier and flow with it. When glaciers are involved, where the plane is found years later is not indicative of where it went down.

That said, I don't agree with the extremists on the global warming side, just like I don't agree with the extreme disbelievers.

 

[ylexot]

SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF “SKEPTIC’S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING”

 

[truby20]

If you hate the oil companies so much, please do not spend any of your money on any of their products. Use absolutely no products derived in any way from oil or where oil or energy from oil is used. After you are homeless, nude, and hungry for a while, come back and tell us how do you feel about oil companies.

At what point did I say I HATE oil companies? I was just saying the the Senator is obviously being influenced by the oil companies; it is in their best interest to keep this country on SUV's and gas fired power plants.

I am fully aware that nearly every item I use every day was brought to me thanks to big oil.....guess I should be praying to them instead of jesus.