Uhh.... ok..?
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
But you said global warming was a myth N8. Have you changed your, umm... nevermind.
Global warming is real. The scientific consensus is that humans are contributing to it and that if left unchecked it will have disastrous effects on the planet. While it might not be feasible to blame any single storm on global warming, certainly rising sea levels and warmer waters will contribute to more storms that have higher intensities.
Old Man G Funk said:
That's not the consensus at all. The consensus is that there is no consensus. We are at or near the peak of a global warming cycle that has been repeating itself over the last 100,000 years or so as evidenced by Greenland ice core samples. The question is will the cycle continue as it has in the past and begin cooling back down again or has mankind screwed up the cycle by introducing lots and lots of carbon into the atmosphere over the last 100 years. This is the point we are now at. Some scientists lean one way, others lean the other way. Nobody knows for sure what is going to happen.
Chicken and waffles VS. a 4x4 from In n' Out?H8R said:
You are either misinformed or willfully passing on half-truths.jdschall said:
The consensus is that humans HAVE contributed and are contributing to global warming. Get over it. The uncertainty is in the potential impacts. Most projected impacts are not good.
Don't believe me? Check the National Academies of Science at http://www.nas.edu/.
Old Man G Funk said:
^^^ what he said.
Old Man G Funk said:
For once I agree with you. Praise be to Allah!
Do black people consider this an actual source of news?
Hot temperatures is not good for chocolate.... unless you want hot chocolate... then it's good.
(I was envisioning what Nagin would say)
(I was envisioning what Nagin would say)
You obviously didn't read what I said very well.Old Man G Funk said:
I didn't say that humans haven't effected the warming trend. I said that we are at or near the peak of a warming cycle that has been repeating itself for about 100,000 years (that we could measure). Nobody knows what is going to happen next. Are we going to continue up or go back down? Is humanity's intervention in the climate over the last hundred or so years enough to tip the balance? There is no consensus among scientists as to what will happen next?
I refer you to the following figure from a presentation by Prof Nate Lewis at CalTech:
Looks like I was off by a few years. The cycles go back over 400,000 years. Notice that at present we are at a peak. The full presentation may be found here: http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/lewis1/oh/01.html
Other insightful articles can be found here: http://www.tidepool.org/archives/brook.html
"If you want to find out what happens when you double the CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, there's no way to test that. We can't do experiments like other types of science," Brook said. "That's why climate models are so important. But the earth's atmosphere is so complicated it is hard to know if they represent reality. The more long term information on climate and atmosphere we can gather, the better those models will be."
And for more on interpreting core samples check here:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html
And thank you for the insightful link the the NAS homepage. Perhaps next time you could actually provide a useful link to the specific report to which you are referring?
Data shows a rise in temperature of Old Man G funk's foreheadjdschall said:
Holy crap, that was funny.MudGrrl said:
Yes, I did. You said there was no consensus on global warming. That is false.jdschall said:
No, the consensus is that we don't know how bad the affects will be. The consensus, however, is that we are in trouble.
Yeah, all you had to do was a search for "global warming" or "climate change."
http://dels.nas.edu/abr_clim/warming.shtml
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s04201998?OpenDocument
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-09-25-oppose_x.htm
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9906
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=210
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
The last link includes this little tidbit:
Only because I detest the misuse of science to further one's own agenda. It happens with evolution, smoking, global warming, stem cells, etc. When people cherry pick data and simply misreport what is out there for their own political means, like saying that there is no consensus on global warming, yes it makes my temperature rise.Echo said:Data shows a rise in temperature of Old Man G funk's forehead
Even the EPA, which is under the purview of the Bush administration - which denies the severity of global warming and that there is a consensus - admits that there is consensus. The only uncertainty is in how it will affect us (as I said before.)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
I find it ironic that you would use a graph that came from a talk about how we need to find alternative fuels in order to reduce carbon emissions.jdschall said:I refer you to the following figure from a presentation by Prof Nate Lewis at CalTech:
Looks like I was off by a few years. The cycles go back over 400,000 years. Notice that at present we are at a peak. The full presentation may be found here: http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/lewis1/oh/01.html
No one is debating whether the Earth has gone through fluctuating periods in the past. That's been known for quite some time, and this graph and that talk don't even deal with the subject.
Nice use of selective reading. He also said this:
And this:
If nobody knows what is going to happen next how do you know that we are at or near the peak of a global warming cycle?jdschall said:
I give up. You win. I'm really impressed.
At least I know I'm not the only one OMGF likes to go super nerd on...........LOL 
What can I say, I am a nerd. But, even nerds like me like to ride.Andyman_1970 said:At least I know I'm not the only one OMGF likes to go super nerd on...........LOL
I misread that.... and was like... who the hell is "Oh My Fckng God"?Andyman_1970 said:At least I know I'm not the only one OMGF likes to go super nerd on...........LOL
But then I realized that I'm kinda dyslexic sometimes.
Old Man G Funk said:
He's actually pretty hard core.
Even if he does like pina coladas, and getting caught in the rain....
Well, really I don't see much point in arguing a semantic issue about whether or not there is a consensus on "what happens next". In reality I agree with OMGF's assessment that the prognosis is probably not good. I was just trying to point out that some people have different thoughts on what will happen next and not all of them have political agendas.
I was playing devil's advocate I suppose.
I was playing devil's advocate I suppose.
"What happens next" is really just a toss up of what unfavorable event occurs. Certainly rising water temperatures will mean more hurricanes will achieve higher category status and will be ever more destructive as just one example. Scientists are in consensus about anthropogenic global warming and that the situation is dire. Saying that there is no consensus is one of the contrarians' tools of deception, because it only gives half the story.jdschall said:
Which, brings me to the political agenda. You might not share the agenda of the contrarians, but by repeating their arguments in the way you have, you certainly support the effect their arguments have. The idea is that we don't have to worry about global warming, because it might adversely affect our economy, never realizing that a booming economy isn't worth a darn thing in a world where everyone is sick from pollution or being killed off by violent storms and unbearable climate conditions. So, they latch on to misquotes and cherry picked pieces of information and throw away all other pieces that don't fit with their already assumed argument. It's insidious and something that we see a lot from the current party in charge (witness their support for ID, denial of global warming, the plan B pill fiasco, the stacking of governmental scientific panels with political hacks, etc.)
So how do you weed out the good science (assuming for the sake of argument that there is some good science) from all the BS? I mean there maybe a legitimate argument buried somewhere in all that rhetoric.
The way you argue it sounds like you can't even have the argument because some one will take it and spin it. As a scientist myself I just want to find out what the answer is independent of the "contrarians" as you call them. The only way to do that is to keep your mind open, objective, and unbiased.
The way you argue it sounds like you can't even have the argument because some one will take it and spin it. As a scientist myself I just want to find out what the answer is independent of the "contrarians" as you call them. The only way to do that is to keep your mind open, objective, and unbiased.
Or you do it the way other scientists do it (like myself) in that you go to the peer reviewed literature and you take meta-studies. You also realize that keeping "your mind open, objective, and unbiased" doesn't mean that you automatically take everything at face value, uncritically. When exxon releases a report that says that burning fossil fuel does no damage to the environment, while countless papers show that it does, it's not closed-minded to reject exxon's paper.jdschall said:
Also, one can't have the argument if one of the arguers sees no problem with misusing or misrepresenting facts to butress their argument. Debates can not work that way.
