?

I think subby needs to work on his proofs some more.

wait... so is it still "global warming"? or is it "climate change" now?

/someone tell these idiots we're coming out of a farking ice age
//oh right, they know, but THAT can't handcuff our economy

Schwarzenegger has a moment of clarity about 2 or 3 times a year.

WTF?
"Schwarzenegger signs bill banning trans fats"

arnold isn't sane, he's just another political sell-out... spend, spend, spend... that's all he does. california budget was somewhere around $70 billion when he took over, now it's north of $100 billion... outpacing inflation and population growth. burn in hell, arnold, burn in hell.

Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming without using the words "Al Gore"?

PS In his veto statement, Schwarzenegger said he supported education that spotlights the dangers of climate change. However, the Republican governor said he was opposed to educational mandates from Sacramento.

moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming

I'm still waiting for you moonbats to prove that:

(a) the earth is getting warmer
(b) it's definitively our fault
(c) handcuffing the US economy will stop it

/never mind that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities are in china

I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: arnold isn't sane, he's just another political sell-out... spend, spend, spend... that's all he does. california budget was somewhere around $70 billion when he took over, now it's north of $100 billion... outpacing inflation and population growth. burn in hell, arnold, burn in hell.

Don't worry. He's going to cut state employee wages to federal minimum wage. That's about a buck fitty below California minimum wage! Think of all the money we'll save!

when all the employees quit

captain_napalm: moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming

I'm still waiting for you moonbats to prove that:

(a) the earth is getting warmer
(b) it's definitively our fault
(c) handcuffing the US economy will stop it

So that's a no on the logical argument huh?

/never mind that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities are in china

I'm curious: Did you honestly think you were making a point here? WTF does this have to do with anything?

PascalsGhost: I'm curious: Did you honestly think you were making a point here? WTF does this have to do with anything?

He's obviously an authoritarian. Logic is alien to them.

Become active about climate change(it's always been climate change btw) would hardly cripple the economy. In fact it would make it better and more efficient. Imagine how much money corporations could save if they switched to more energy efficient means of production. Not to mention the new innovations that would arrive out of that movement, most of which would be profitable.

One of the best fiscally sound government programs is the EPA due to how much money they save the government by installed more energy efficient systems in government owned buildings.

And yes China pollutes a lot and they are not excused from blame and I believe carbon limits should apply to them as well. However for the last half of a century, the US has contributed 25% of CO2 with only 4% of the population. So we must share the blame too.

moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming without using the words "Al Gore"?

Against the data that the average surface temperature of the earth has been cycling warmer than various times in the past? No, that's data, it can only be countered by other data or a fairly detailed look at the studies involved which finds the methodology invalid.

Against the media's pet 'we're all gonna die' story of the moment? Yeah, much of that appears to be a politically motivated drive by the same environmental anti-human nutcases that brought you "genetic modification will fill your body with toxins" and "nuclear power plants will sneak into your houses at night and murder your children". There are (relatively minor) pollution issues with industry (well, with everything, actually, including the non-human bits of the natural world), we're working on it, yelling won't speed it up so calm the hell down and stop freaking out. An asteroid isn't going to fall on your house or anything.

Jim_Callahan: moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming without using the words "Al Gore"?

Against the media's pet 'we're all gonna die' story of the moment? Yeah, much of that appears to be a politically motivated drive by the same environmental anti-human nutcases that brought you "genetic modification will fill your body with toxins" and "nuclear power plants will sneak into your houses at night and murder your children". There are (relatively minor) pollution issues with industry (well, with everything, actually, including the non-human bits of the natural world), we're working on it, yelling won't speed it up so calm the hell down and stop freaking out. An asteroid isn't going to fall on your house or anything.

So, no.

Jim_Callahan: An asteroid isn't going to fall on your house or anything.

Now wouldn't you feel bad if an asteroid fell on his/her house?

moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming without using the words "Al Gore"?

I've actually done a lot of research using the data from the Lake Vostok core samples as well as measurements from more recently. When compared, it actually appears CO2 levels in the atmosphere change after a temperature change. This isn't my area of expertise, but it almost appears that temperature levels affected CO2 and not vice versa... perhaps having to do with solubility of CO2 and sea temperature?

Anyway, most evidence I have uncovered points to the Sun being the major player. Is that to say high levels of greenhouse gasses don't exacerbate such cycles and even artificially prolong them? I don't think that either. Pollution is a real problem and we need to conserve resources/not "shiat in our own playground" as it were.

The problem with linking those noble goals to something that may or may not be scientifically proven, however, is that if it is proven wrong people who have an interest in not conserving (and there are plenty out there) can easily punch holes in the still noble cause of conservation.

I'm not saying we have no impact on climate change... I'm not saying we do... I need more evidence. In the meantime there are hundreds of other reasons to support conservation and reduce pollution. One of those reasons should be "if we are having a large impact on climate change then we need to take measures regardless, then we can always find out later we weren't and being cleaner and renewable isn't going to kill us".

From a scientific standpoint, it hasn't passed statistical muster for me. Doesn't mean it won't. Grand theories take a long time to flesh out and get all the data for it and I'm willing to give it that time. I just can't accept it at the moment.

/but, as a scientist, I have no reason to reject it either... just need more information

Hypoconcerned: moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming without using the words "Al Gore"?

I've actually done a lot of research using the data from the Lake Vostok core samples as well as measurements from more recently. When compared, it actually appears CO2 levels in the atmosphere change after a temperature change. This isn't my area of expertise, but it almost appears that temperature levels affected CO2 and not vice versa... perhaps having to do with solubility of CO2 and sea temperature?

If you had actually done "a lot of research" then you would have seen this paper. (PDF, new window) Timing of Atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III...concludes:

"The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO₂ participating in the latter ~4200 years of warming."

In a nutshell, although CO₂ initially lags due to another event (most likely Milankovitch cycles), it is responsible for the long term warming effects.



Anyway, most evidence I have uncovered points to the Sun being the major player. Is that to say high levels of greenhouse gasses don't exacerbate such cycles and even artificially prolong them? I don't think that either. Pollution is a real problem and we need to conserve resources/not "shiat in our own playground" as it were.

Really? The evidence you uncovered points to the sun? Really? What evidence would that be? Would it be the evidence that shows that the sun is responsible for no more than 30% (pdf,new window) of the warming since 1970? Or that there is no correlation between cosmic rays, cloud cover, and climate change (new window)? Or that the recent warming cannot be attributed to solar variability no matter what mechanism is used (pdf, new window) or how much the solar variation is amplified?

What evidence do you have exactly?

The problem with linking those noble goals to something that may or may not be scientifically proven, however, is that if it is proven wrong people who have an interest in not conserving (and there are plenty out there) can easily punch holes in the still noble cause of conservation.

Or we can just ignore the science and continue with the status quo of not conserving.

I'm not saying we have no impact on climate change... I'm not saying we do... I need more evidence.

Talk less. Read more. Preferably from a credible source.

From a scientific standpoint, it hasn't passed statistical muster for me. Doesn't mean it won't. Grand theories take a long time to flesh out and get all the data for it and I'm willing to give it that time. I just can't accept it at the moment.

Is 15 years long enough? Science has been over for about that long. Only thing going on right now is clearing up loose ends and talking points.

/but, as a scientist, I have no reason to reject it either... just need more information

Again...talk less. Read more.

moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming without using the words "Al Gore"?

Can the entire world scientific community provide the science of Global Warming^tm without having to resort to a "consensus?"

Caloric Fluid!
Ether!
Spontaneous Generation!
Intelligent Design!

If the world is warming, then it is deviating from the temperature it should be it.

Question: What is the correct temperature that the world should be at?

The internet is just jealous of California's knowledge.

/Seriously

moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming without using the words "Al Gore"?

Sure.

On Global Cooling:

"We cannot simply afford to gamble ... by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climactic instability are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." --Lowell Ponte, The Cooling. p 237, 1978

A Report (new window)

The Global Cooling and now Global Warming crowd seem to be totally consumed by the intermediate trends shown on page 2.

Watch. (new window)

Hypoconcerned:
I've actually done a lot of research using the data from the Lake Vostok core samples as well as measurements from more recently. When compared, it actually appears CO2 levels in the atmosphere change after a temperature change. This isn't my area of expertise, but it almost appears that temperature levels affected CO2 and not vice versa... perhaps having to do with solubility of CO2 and sea temperature?

Actually, climate models say they both affect each other. That is, temperature and CO₂ (at least at certain levels) form a positive feedback loop -- increasing one causes an increase in the other, which causes the first to increase, and so on, up to a point.

Anyway, most evidence I have uncovered points to the Sun being the major player.

Over geological time? Certainly (though mainly because of changes in sunlight caused by changes in Earth's orbit, not changes in the sun). However, current world temperatures over the last 50 years are not linked to solar activity -- even in periods when solar activity is falling, temperature is not only rising, but the rise in temperature is accelerating. That indicates solar output cannot be the main driving force of climate change right now. Whatever the driving force of climate change is, we should see a positive correlation between it and the second derivative of temperature, and solar output fails that test.

Sum Dum Gai: Hypoconcerned:
I've actually done a lot of research using the data from the Lake Vostok core samples as well as measurements from more recently. When compared, it actually appears CO2 levels in the atmosphere change after a temperature change. This isn't my area of expertise, but it almost appears that temperature levels affected CO2 and not vice versa... perhaps having to do with solubility of CO2 and sea temperature?

Actually, climate models say they both affect each other. That is, temperature and CO2 (at least at certain levels) form a positive feedback loop -- increasing one causes an increase in the other, which causes the first to increase, and so on, up to a point.

Anyway, most evidence I have uncovered points to the Sun being the major player.

Over geological time? Certainly (though mainly because of changes in sunlight caused by changes in Earth's orbit, not changes in the sun). However, current world temperatures over the last 50 years are not linked to solar activity -- even in periods when solar activity is falling, temperature is not only rising, but the rise in temperature is accelerating. That indicates solar output cannot be the main driving force of climate change right now. Whatever the driving force of climate change is, we should see a positive correlation between it and the second derivative of temperature, and solar output fails that test.

Your claim is false. See Page 1 (new window)

captain_napalm: (c) handcuffing the US economy will stop it

/never mind that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities are in china

Not being one of the knowledgeable farkers when it comes to climate, I can't informatively answer the A or B, but C is a tu quoque logical fallacy. The fact that others continue to pollute isn't an excuse to continue doing so ourselves, and the chance to lead the world in such a beneficial reform should be jumped at, not condemned.

The argument that alternative fuels will somehow seize the economy may have some weight behind it, but the fact remains is that the current fuels are an increasingly finite resource, regardless of their impact on the climate and it is advantageous to make these changes now, while the effort is simpler and not as stressed.

BigPhilly: moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming without using the words "Al Gore"?

Sure.

On Global Cooling:

"We cannot simply afford to gamble ... by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climactic instability are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." --Lowell Ponte, The Cooling. p 237, 1978

Not a scientist. And global cooling was not a consensus.


A Report (new window)

A non-peer reviewed review. The OISM paper is commonly used by those who do not understand the difference between science and downright lies. The "paper" was circulated to scientists around the world, typeset in a manner similar to PNAS, although it was never peer reviewed or published. It was subsequently published in a low journal as a non-peer reviewed review which led to an editorial scandal.


The Global Cooling and now Global Warming crowd seem to be totally consumed by the intermediate trends shown on page 2.

It just goes to show how denialists can manipulate people and data in order to suit them. The graph shows US temperature...not global temperature.


Watch. (new window)

Not a climatologist nor a rational human being. He doesn't present a bit of data in the entire speech related to global warming.

Read more science. Not more propaganda.

captain_napalm:
/someone tell these idiots we're coming out of a farking ice age


1. We've been out of the ice age for millennia.

2. We're much closer to entering into another ice age than we are to leaving the previous one. It's been 11,000 years since the last ice age ended, and the average length of time that temperatures have stayed warm before they start to drop is about 10,000 years, and it seems to be getting shorter. We're actually overdue for an ice age by now.

3. Milankovitch cycles, which drive the ice age cycles, are too slow to cause the change we're seeing now. We're seeing four to five times as rapid change as we should be seeing if it were interglacial warming. And that's four to five times the FASTEST warming, which occurs just at the beginning of the interglacial. That rapid warming happened 12,000-11,000 years ago, we certainly shouldn't be seeing any of that now. We should be seeing temperatures very slowly falling.

Many of the right-wing loons who would go right on burning oil at present rates and to hell with global warming, are the same ones who yell the sky is falling every time Osama bin Laughin' pops up and says boo. Can't they put two and two together and figure out that by burning less oil we dry up Osama's bank account?

ninjakirby: captain_napalm: (c) handcuffing the US economy will stop it

/never mind that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities are in china

Not being one of the knowledgeable farkers when it comes to climate, I can't informatively answer the A or B, but C is a tu quoque logical fallacy. The fact that others continue to pollute isn't an excuse to continue doing so ourselves, and the chance to lead the world in such a beneficial reform should be jumped at, not condemned.

The argument that alternative fuels will somehow seize the economy may have some weight behind it, but the fact remains is that the current fuels are an increasingly finite resource, regardless of their impact on the climate and it is advantageous to make these changes now, while the effort is simpler and not as stressed.

He's not interested in logic. He's irrational and mentally challenged. His talking point about 16 of the top 20 most polluted cities being in China isn't even correct. Blacksmith Institute does the annual report.

Blacksmith Institute Annual Report 2007 (new window)

Doc Lee ...

The guy asked for some arguments not including the words "Al Gore," I delivered.

As for your response, its nice to see that ad hominem is alive and well.

PascalsGhost: captain_napalm: moothemagiccow: Can any of you present a logical argument against global warming

I'm still waiting for you moonbats to prove that:

(a) the earth is getting warmer
(b) it's definitively our fault
(c) handcuffing the US economy will stop it

So that's a no on the logical argument huh?

/never mind that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities are in china

I'm curious: Did you honestly think you were making a point here? WTF does this have to do with anything?

Great comeback.If you can't answer a question, DON'T.

Also, why DOESN'T the Kyoto Protocol make China and India cut their emissions?

BigPhilly: Doc Lee ...

The guy asked for some arguments not including the words "Al Gore," I delivered.

As for your response, its nice to see that ad hominem is alive and well.

If you wanted to post a rebuttal that wasn't ad hominem and actually, you know, dealt with the substance of their arguments then you should have linked to this. (new window)

Doc Lee: So, is Al Gore a scientist? No? Then how are any of his points valid?

Petard muthafarker, do you hoist it?

BigPhilly: Your claim is false. See Page 1 (new window)

Why is a climate change paper published in a medical journal? By non-climatologists, for that matter? The principal authors' area of expertise is protein structure and molecular biology (and, apparently, home schooling).

The authors also work as two of the six faculty at their research facility, and their study was financed by the American Petroleum Industry.

And I can't count how many terrible, terrible statistical practices that paper uses. I think they prove the old story that everyone hears in grad school -- 'A scientist wants help interpreting his results and so he goes to a statistician. The statistician looks at the data and says to the scientist "This is good data. What would you like it to show?"' Many of their comparisons have the feeling of being cherry-picked to fit a particular result.

Ace Attorney: Also, why DOESN'T the Kyoto Protocol make China and India cut their emissions?

Because of three major reasons:

1. Developing nations aren't at the point where they have the level of technology at affordable prices to reduce emissions,

2. The sum of all emissions caused by developing nations is a drop in the bucket compared to how much industrialized nations have put out,

3. Per capita, India and China are not even in the top 20 in terms of amount of emissions.

BigPhilly: Doc Lee ...

The guy asked for some arguments not including the words "Al Gore," I delivered.

As for your response, its nice to see that ad hominem is alive and well.

I addressed your particular point directly. If you wanted to point out how exactly that paper supported your conclusions in more depth, I would have addressed those two as I addressed other people's misconceptions. You didn't give much...just a link to a discredited source.

Ace Attorney: Doc Lee: So, is Al Gore a scientist? No? Then how are any of his points valid?

Petard muthafarker, do you hoist it?

I'm sorry, but where did I bring up Al Gore? I did not use Al Gore as a source nor did I refer to him in any of my arguments. I guess you're projecting...a lot. It's ok. Have a cheesecake.

Hoisted by your own Gore Derangement Syndrome?

Sum Dum Gai: Ace Attorney: Also, why DOESN'T the Kyoto Protocol make China and India cut their emissions?

Because of three major reasons:

1. Developing nations aren't at the point where they have the level of technology at affordable prices to reduce emissions,

2. The sum of all emissions caused by developing nations is a drop in the bucket compared to how much industrialized nations have put out,

3. Per capita, India and China are not even in the top 20 in terms of amount of emissions.

China also has a population of 1 BILLION

You comparing them to America is like me comparing an ice cube to a Glacier, which is hard with all of them melting, right?

Doc Lee: Ace Attorney: Doc Lee: So, is Al Gore a scientist? No? Then how are any of his points valid?

Petard muthafarker, do you hoist it?

I'm sorry, but where did I bring up Al Gore? I did not use Al Gore as a source nor did I refer to him in any of my arguments. I guess you're projecting...a lot. It's ok. Have a cheesecake.

Hoisted by your own Gore Derangement Syndrome?

Doc Lee:

Not a scientist.

A non-peer reviewed review.

can manipulate people and data in order to suit them.

Not a climatologist nor a rational human being.

Seems like you mentioned Al Gore a lot. My mistake

Ace Attorney:
China also has a population of 1 BILLION

You comparing them to America is like me comparing an ice cube to a Glacier, which is hard with all of them melting, right?

The US and Europe combined have about the same population as China and give off far more pollution.

I mean, if China broke up into three nations, each about the population of the US, would they suddenly become three times more environmentally friendly? Per capita is important too.

Sum Dum Gai: Ace Attorney:
China also has a population of 1 BILLION

You comparing them to America is like me comparing an ice cube to a Glacier, which is hard with all of them melting, right?

The US and Europe combined have about the same population as China and give off far more pollution.

I mean, if China broke up into three nations, each about the population of the US, would they suddenly become three times more environmentally friendly? Per capita is important too.

If you combined the US and Europe, what would the per capita be then? Math is important too

Hysteria! Hysteria! (new window)

I did it all for the lolz (new window)

Ace Attorney: If you combined the US and Europe, what would the per capita be then? Math is important too

US: 6.05 million metric tons CO2, 300,000,000 people
China: 5.01 million metric tons, 1,300,000,000 people.
Europe: 4.00 million metric tons, 500,000,000 people

So per capita:

US: 20.1 metric tons per 1,000 people
US+Europe: 12.66 metric tons per 1,000 people
Europe: 8 metric tons per 1,000 people
China: 3.85 metric tons per 1,000 people

Also, if you look at it this way -- china makes up 19.7% of the world's population and 18.4% of the world's CO2 emissions. It's not emitting unreasonably much, considering its population.

Sum Dum Gai: Ace Attorney: If you combined the US and Europe, what would the per capita be then? Math is important too

US: 6.05 million metric tons CO2, 300,000,000 people
China: 5.01 million metric tons, 1,300,000,000 people.
Europe: 4.00 million metric tons, 500,000,000 people

So per capita:

US: 20.1 metric tons per 1,000 people
US+Europe: 12.66 metric tons per 1,000 people
Europe: 8 metric tons per 1,000 people
China: 3.85 metric tons per 1,000 people

Also, if you look at it this way -- china makes up 19.7% of the world's population and 18.4% of the world's CO2 emissions. It's not emitting unreasonably much, considering its population.

NO! Science, my one true weakness!

Serious though, surprised Doc Lee hasn't come to defend himself on my Al Gore comment (the reply to his reply)

Ace Attorney: Doc Lee: Ace Attorney: Doc Lee: So, is Al Gore a scientist? No? Then how are any of his points valid?

Petard muthafarker, do you hoist it?

I'm sorry, but where did I bring up Al Gore? I did not use Al Gore as a source nor did I refer to him in any of my arguments. I guess you're projecting...a lot. It's ok. Have a cheesecake.

Hoisted by your own Gore Derangement Syndrome?

Doc Lee:

Not a scientist.

A non-peer reviewed review.

can manipulate people and data in order to suit them.

Not a climatologist nor a rational human being.

Seems like you mentioned Al Gore a lot. My mistake

I stated the science for what it is. It seems like you have some sort of hang up on this Al Gore fella. You might want to get that checked out. Could be early signs of mental delusion.

Doc Lee: Ace Attorney: Doc Lee: Ace Attorney: Doc Lee: So, is Al Gore a scientist? No? Then how are any of his points valid?

Petard muthafarker, do you hoist it?

I'm sorry, but where did I bring up Al Gore? I did not use Al Gore as a source nor did I refer to him in any of my arguments. I guess you're projecting...a lot. It's ok. Have a cheesecake.

Hoisted by your own Gore Derangement Syndrome?

Doc Lee:

Not a scientist.

A non-peer reviewed review.

can manipulate people and data in order to suit them.

Not a climatologist nor a rational human being.

Seems like you mentioned Al Gore a lot. My mistake

I stated the science for what it is. It seems like you have some sort of hang up on this Al Gore fella. You might want to get that checked out. Could be early signs of mental delusion.

No, I just pointed out how you bash their reports because they aren't "real scientists", when Al Gore, the poster child of your entire grassroots movement, isn't a scientist either.

Doc Lee: Not a climatologist nor a rational human being. He doesn't present a bit of data in the entire speech related to global warming.

I think his point of applying complexity theory is extremely important. When you apply linear modeling to non-linear systems you get Absurd Results (new window)

Calling him "not a rational human being?" WTF?

In his talk he covers the hysteria of the media and the failure of overly simple models which contain incorrect assumptions. His talk is an extremely good one to listen to and you just might learn something.