Global Warning is Very Real

[9sublime]

You, my friend, are no worse than those who are very confident that global warming is real.

What expertise do you have to make this claim on the contrary? Nothing at all. You are just as much a parrot as those who support global warming without question. You have no scientific degrees, no large amount of knowledge to support your claim, you are just as much in the dark as everyone else, but yet you speak with conviction.

Do you really think that all those fumes you see pouring out of an SUV, and out of factories all over the world does nothing at all?? I personally think chances are we are affected the climate dramatically... the waste of 6 billion people is bound to. However, global warming is an inaccurate term. Global change, on the other hand, is more to the point.
We are affecting the Earths natural balance, and I think that this will lead to global warming and global cooling, amounst other things.

Go do some research before you spout claims like the next person with no expertise, and always keep an open mind in a situation like this. I know your a die hard conservative, and change is a very scary thing, but try and be a man.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Palerider claims that the Arctic ice is thickening.

NASA has found otherwise:

Using data from CloudSat and NASA's Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation satellite, they found the total cloud cover over the western Arctic, where most of the ice loss occurred, was 16 percent less over the 2007 melt season than in 2006. The resulting clearer skies in 2007 heated the Arctic surface enough to warm ocean waters by 2.4 degrees Celsius (four degrees Fahrenheit) or enough to melt 0.3 meters (one foot) of sea ice. Anomalous clouds, in addition to other weather factors, helped melt ice that had already thinned due to sustained warming in recent years.
The results highlight the importance of weather pattern variability to a warming Arctic environment. "As Arctic sea ice thins, its extent is more sensitive to year-to-year variability in weather and cloud patterns," said Kay. "Our data show that clearer skies this summer allowed more of the sun's energy to melt the vulnerably thin sea ice and heat the ocean surface."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cloudsat/news/cloudsat-20071212.html

The larger point of the article is that increased surveillance platforms such as CloudSat will provide us with more and more precise data regarding this issue. Which is all to the good.

 

[Libsmasher]

.

The issue is not whether there is global warming, but the cause, which imo has not been proven. The global warmists want to effect radical policies which will have disastrous consequences for employment and living standards in the US. (Sorry, I don't think the millions of unemployed will find employment in "green" industries.) I haven't heard anybody talk about the benefits of global warming. Won't it cut down our heating bills? Create arable land in canada and siberia? I saw on TV that it's now possible to ship across northern canada now - that's bad??

 

[palerider]

The issue is not whether there is global warming, but the cause, which imo has not been proven. The global warmists want to effect radical policies which will have disastrous consequences for employment and living standards in the US. (Sorry, I don't think the millions of unemployed will find employment in "green" industries.) I haven't heard anybody talk about the benefits of global warming. Won't it cut down our heating bills? Create arable land in canada and siberia? I saw on TV that it's now possible to ship across northern canada now - that's bad??

You have that right. You would have a hard time convincing me, or most any other reasonable person that the earth is at its optimum temperature right now. Longer growing seasons and shorter heating seasons would have to be good for most everyone.

And the fact remains that the earth started heating up some 14,000 years ago and the ice has melted back from most of the northrern hemisphere. I fail to see what is surprising about the fact that it is warming up. One would think with a trend lasting some 14,000 years, anyone would get it by now. Furthermore, there isn't the slightest bit of evidence that suggests that the exit from this ice age is any different than the exit from any past ice age.

 

[palerider]

That "article" on Inhofe's website was written by Marc Morano. His blog on Inhofe's website does nothing put promote climate change skeptics.

Morano was formerly with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show.

Involved with the Swift Boat ads, Limbaugh, and now Inhofe, and you expect me to take what this oily joker has to say seriously?

Waaaahhh waaahhh waaahhh. Booo hooo hooo. If you can't dispute the information I provided, it stands you big baby. Complaining about the source is the most childish of the logical fallacies. Complaining about the source is what people who are unable to argue the information do and so far, it is about all you have done.

In case you haven't noticed, this debate isn't about the swift boat vets, or rush limbaugh, or the past election. This particular point is about a 50 billion to 19 billion difference in funding for agw'ers vs skeptics. So far, you have done nothing to disprove the difference in funding. Prove the information is wrong or take your whining a$$ to some kiddie politic site where such behavior constitutes acceptable debate.

 

[palerider]

Palerider claims that the Arctic ice is thickening.

NASA has found otherwise:

Using data from CloudSat and NASA's Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation satellite, they found the total cloud cover over the western Arctic, where most of the ice loss occurred, was 16 percent less over the 2007 melt season than in 2006. The resulting clearer skies in 2007 heated the Arctic surface enough to warm ocean waters by 2.4 degrees Celsius (four degrees Fahrenheit) or enough to melt 0.3 meters (one foot) of sea ice. Anomalous clouds, in addition to other weather factors, helped melt ice that had already thinned due to sustained warming in recent years.
The results highlight the importance of weather pattern variability to a warming Arctic environment. "As Arctic sea ice thins, its extent is more sensitive to year-to-year variability in weather and cloud patterns," said Kay. "Our data show that clearer skies this summer allowed more of the sun's energy to melt the vulnerably thin sea ice and heat the ocean surface."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cloudsat/news/cloudsat-20071212.html

The larger point of the article is that increased surveillance platforms such as CloudSat will provide us with more and more precise data regarding this issue. Which is all to the good.

Even "if" and I am not saying that I accept that it is true that the arctic ice is fading away, what do you think that it proves. The ice has been melting back from the northern hemisphere for 14,000 years now. Exactly what would be so surprising about the fact that it continues to melt back?

 

[Popeye]

Waaaahhh waaahhh waaahhh. Booo hooo hooo. If you can't dispute the information I provided, it stands you big baby. Complaining about the source is the most childish of the logical fallacies. Complaining about the source is what people who are unable to argue the information do and so far, it is about all you have done.

In case you haven't noticed, this debate isn't about the swift boat vets, or rush limbaugh, or the past election. This particular point is about a 50 billion to 19 billion difference in funding for agw'ers vs skeptics. So far, you have done nothing to disprove the difference in funding. Prove the information is wrong or take your whining a$$ to some kiddie politic site where such behavior constitutes acceptable debate.

I draw a distinction between research funding, and a deliberate campaign, by the fossil fuel industry, to raise doubts as to global warming.

Nevertheless, here is something on your dubious $50 billion assertion:

The only problem is -- Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION - see below )

Problem is, one of those numbers is unsubstantiated, and both are obviously manipulated for maximum effect.

First, Morano's $19 million statistic for for "skeptics" is not an analysis of all expenditures by "those skeptical of the man-made global warming theory." He cites just a single statistic in support of the claim: that $19 million is the amount ExxonMobil has given to conservative organizations over the past two decades.

That means Morano is obvioiusly lowballing the money spent by "skeptics." For instance, a single conservative "skeptic" organization, the Heartland Institute, recently declared that it has "run more than $500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times promoting a debate" over global warming featuring skeptics against Gore. That number -- spent by a single group on newspaper ads alone -- is more than 5 percent of Morano's claimed total for all "skeptic" funding. Imagine what the gamut of conservative groups are spending.

Morano's source for the $50 billion number, meanwhile, is Australian "skeptic" Robert Carter. The article that Morano cites in which Carter asserts that $50 billion has been spent "on research into global warming since 1990" offers no documentation to support the claim.

Morano offered an link to a similar claim -- an article by denier Steven Milloy, a peddler of dubious claims who asserts that "The Bush administration, after all, is by far the largest funder of global warming alarmism, pouring about $30 billion of federal dollars into climate- and alternative energy-related research over the last six years." Note that Milloy lumps "alternative energy-related research" into the category of "global warming alarmism" without any explanation or justification for doing so. (Like the article featuring Carter, Milloy offers no evidence to substantiate his claim.)

Morano plays the same game as Milloy. As part of the "money ... the climate alarmists have at their disposal," Morano cited "a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson." In fact, Branson said that money is going toward developing clean technologies, such as wind turbines and cleaner-burning aviation fuel, with a heavy emphasis on developing "cellulosic" ethanol. Morano, like Milloy, offered no justification for asserting that development of alternative fuels equals a donation to "climate alarmists."

In a similar fit of game-playing, Morano stated that "The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year," but he offers no evidence to support his assumption that all $148 million -- let alone any of it -- went toward fighting global warming.

The fact that Morano's numbers fail to stand up to even the basest standard of scrutiny, however, hasn't stopped the ConWeb from repeating them like a mantra:

* NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard -- who has his own record of making misleading and deceptive claims about global warming -- in an Aug. 6 post: "Unlike Newsweek, Morano presented actual hard dollar numbers contributed by various groups to fund global warming research and the advancement of climate change hysteria. How was this information ignored by Newsweek which presents itself as a member of the media, and not a political action group?"
* Sheppard, in an Aug. 8 post, asserted that Morano "carefully detailed" his evidence, adding that "Gore talks about $10 million possibly coming from ExxonMobil, which the oil giant has denied as 'completely false' " -- even though Morano used ExxonMobil funding as his only evidence of "skeptics" receiving money.
* Brent Baker, in an Aug. 8 Media Research Center CyberAlert, referenced Morano's numbers, though he doesn't note that Morano is a former MRC employee.
* Roger Aronoff, in an Aug. 10 Accuracy in Media special report, cited Morano's numbers as evidence that "[t]he Newsweek story is misleading, even false, in another key aspect."
* Joseph Farah, in an Aug. 16 WorldNetDaily screed against the Newsweek article, cited Morano's numbers (though not naming him) to prove that "[o]ne thing I've noticed about socialists and tyrants and those who do their bidding is that they always accuse others of doing what they do.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/morano.html

 

[ilikeboobs]

You, my friend, are no worse than those who are very confident that global warming is real.

What expertise do you have to make this claim on the contrary? Nothing at all. You are just as much a parrot as those who support global warming without question. You have no scientific degrees, no large amount of knowledge to support your claim, you are just as much in the dark as everyone else, but yet you speak with conviction.

Do you really think that all those fumes you see pouring out of an SUV, and out of factories all over the world does nothing at all?? I personally think chances are we are affected the climate dramatically... the waste of 6 billion people is bound to. However, global warming is an inaccurate term. Global change, on the other hand, is more to the point.
We are affecting the Earths natural balance, and I think that this will lead to global warming and global cooling, amounst other things.

Go do some research before you spout claims like the next person with no expertise, and always keep an open mind in a situation like this. I know your a die hard conservative, and change is a very scary thing, but try and be a man.

What good would it do me to cite any research for you? You're going to believe whatever you want to believe. I've posted RESEARCH here before but apparently you've ignored it and chose to go about your "the sky is falling" merry way. I've done my research. According to you, that means I'm now a man. Good for me.

For every article I may post about how global warming is a scam, you could post a counter-article saying it's not. Neither one of us is a scientist who has done actual research on the subject. So all we've got to go on is our common sense and the (hopefully) honest research that's already been done by people claiming to be experts in the field.

Yes, I am a hardcore conservative. Apparently to some people that means I want poor people dead, I want to kill gays, and that I hate the earth and I want everyone breathing dirty air, even my wife & kids.

Look - I'm all for common sense reductions in pollution, but not to the extent that some are calling for (stop driving cars, walk to work, death to all plastic, blah blah blah...). I want clean water. I want clean air. Any company that pollutes should be shut down until they can figure out how to run clean. That said, I don't believe that what we are doing, as humans, amounts to any more than a fraction of what some hippies are screaming. I know it's a tired "denier" cliche, but the earth HAS indeed warmed and cooled over and over, even when there were no SUV's. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. Quit worrying your britches over it.

 

[Libsmasher]

.

You've stated it well, ilikeboobs. The anthropogenic global warming "evidence" I've seen is based on questionable models/simulations, carefully truncated temperature graphs, and "votes" of scientists. Do we want to wreck our civilization based on someone's unproven theory?

 

[Popeye]

You've stated it well, ilikeboobs. The anthropogenic global warming "evidence" I've seen is based on questionable models/simulations, carefully truncated temperature graphs, and "votes" of scientists. Do we want to wreck our civilization based on someone's unproven theory?

John McCain from his website: "The burning of oil and other fossil fuels is contributing to the dangerous accumulation of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, altering our climate with the potential for major social, economic and political upheaval. It is a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge."

Some urge we do nothing because we can't be certain how bad the problem might become or they presume the worst effects are most likely to occur in our grandchildren's lifetime. I'm a proud conservative, and I reject that kind of live-for-today, 'me generation,' attitude. It is unworthy of us. Americans have never feared change. We make change work for us.

Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution."

I'm no fan of John McCain, but he's one conservative who understands the problem.
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/News/Speeches/d0964a71-079a-4a31-b13f-d0aa7f5732d4.htm

 

[Libsmasher]

.

John McCain from his website: "The burning of oil and other fossil fuels is contributing to the dangerous accumulation of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, altering our climate with the potential for major social, economic and political upheaval. It is a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge."

Some urge we do nothing because we can't be certain how bad the problem might become or they presume the worst effects are most likely to occur in our grandchildren's lifetime. I'm a proud conservative, and I reject that kind of live-for-today, 'me generation,' attitude. It is unworthy of us. Americans have never feared change. We make change work for us.

Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution."

I'm no fan of John McCain, but he's one conservative who understands the problem.
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/News/Speeches/d0964a71-079a-4a31-b13f-d0aa7f5732d4.htm

Sorry, McCain lost his conservative credentials when he voted against tax cuts, voted for campaign finance "reform", and supported the illegal alien tsunami.

 

[palerider]

I'm no fan of John McCain, but he's one conservative who understands the problem.
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/News/Speeches/d0964a71-079a-4a31-b13f-d0aa7f5732d4.htm

John McCain is no conservative. I am a conservative and find myself at odds with him on every issue from restricting free political speech with mccain feingold to his opposition to tax cuts. He is no more and no less than a man who enjoys having power over people and follows whatever path is necessary to gain more. If there were power to be had in voicing the actual science that shows AGW to be the farce it is, then he would be the nation's number one skeptic.

There have always been people who will say and do whatever is necessary to gain power over people and very often, they were simply ordinary, observant people who noticed things that the vast majority didn't. They noticed repeating patterns in the sky and concieved of a means to gain power over even the most powerful people by appearing to be able to predict what was going to happen in the sky. Predict a couple of eclipses and a comet or two and you would be able to bend any king to your will.

Today, the high priests are predicting that the earth is warming. AGAIN. If you used the brains you were born with, you would be able to understand that they are doing nothing more than predicting what has already happened over and over and over. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the idea that humans have anything to do with global climate cycles, but in their ignorance, the masses are awed by the priests who claim to be able to predict the future. Funny thing though, in the old days when a priest predicted an eclipse and it didn't happen, the masses had is head as a charlatan until the next priest came along. Your priests have a very crappy record of predicting anything and yet, the masses continue to believe.

How does it make you feel to know that a bumpkin living 500 or 1000 years ago was much less gullible than you. They knew fakes when they saw them by virtue of the fact that their predictions didn't come true. What is your excuse for continuing to believe?

 

[palerider]

I draw a distinction between research funding, and a deliberate campaign, by the fossil fuel industry, to raise doubts as to global warming.

Well, of course you do. Even when, I suppose, that "research money" is used in the form of very expensive and expansive media campaigns. Have you never seen the AGW commmercials on TV in which some movie star tells us how we are causing global warming and at the end, you see on the screen which taxpayer funded department, or agency is sponsoring the campaign. You really are naive.

Nevertheless, here is something on your dubious $50 billion assertion:

[/quote=from your link]Morano's source for the $50 billion number, meanwhile, is Australian "skeptic" Robert Carter. The article that Morano cites in which Carter asserts that $50 billion has been spent "on research into global warming since 1990" offers no documentation to support the claim. [/quote]

Your guy claims that there was no documentation and that the source was from ausrtalia. The article says:

Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics.

 

[Popeye]

John McCain is no conservative. I am a conservative and find myself at odds with him on every issue from restricting free political speech with mccain feingold to his opposition to tax cuts. He is no more and no less than a man who enjoys having power over people and follows whatever path is necessary to gain more. If there were power to be had in voicing the actual science that shows AGW to be the farce it is, then he would be the nation's number one skeptic.

Obviously, I'm going to have to take another look at McCain if he is the Republican nominee. When he first ran against Bush in 2000, I rather liked his maverick approach. However, in this cycle, his pandering to fundamentalist Christian leaders turned me away. Now, however, seeing as you dislike him so much, I realize he must have something positive to offer.

Today, the high priests are predicting that the earth is warming. AGAIN. If you used the brains you were born with, you would be able to understand that they are doing nothing more than predicting what has already happened over and over and over. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the idea that humans have anything to do with global climate cycles, but in their ignorance, the masses are awed by the priests who claim to be able to predict the future. Funny thing though, in the old days when a priest predicted an eclipse and it didn't happen, the masses had is head as a charlatan until the next priest came along. Your priests have a very crappy record of predicting anything and yet, the masses continue to believe.

How does it make you feel to know that a bumpkin living 500 or 1000 years ago was much less gullible than you. They knew fakes when they saw them by virtue of the fact that their predictions didn't come true. What is your excuse for continuing to believe?

I see, so I'm more gullible than some bumpkin of 1000 years ago. I'm in good company, as the greenhouse effect and the conclusion that it is influencing climate change is endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Are all of these scientists more gullible than some 'bumpkin living 500 or 1000 years ago'?

 

[Popeye]

Well, of course you do. Even when, I suppose, that "research money" is used in the form of very expensive and expansive media campaigns. Have you never seen the AGW commmercials on TV in which some movie star tells us how we are causing global warming and at the end, you see on the screen which taxpayer funded department, or agency is sponsoring the campaign. You really are naive.

Thanks pale, I feel a similar way about you. Only instead of naive, I'd say you're closer to just plain stubborn.

Your guy claims that there was no documentation and that the source was from ausrtalia. The article says:

Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics.

I can see you're on the back foot, as you took that quote completely out of context.

First off, Conant was given the data by James Inhofe (R-Exxon), intending to show conclusive proof of a funding advantage held by proponents. However the rest of the quote says,

"Problem is, one of those numbers is unsubstantiated, and both are obviously manipulated for maximum effect.

First, Morano's $19 million statistic for for "skeptics" is not an analysis of all expenditures by "those skeptical of the man-made global warming theory." He cites just a single statistic in support of the claim: that $19 million is the amount ExxonMobil has given to conservative organizations over the past two decades.

That means Morano is obvioiusly lowballing the money spent by "skeptics." For instance, a single conservative "skeptic" organization, the Heartland Institute, recently declared that it has "run more than $500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times promoting a debate" over global warming featuring skeptics against Gore. That number -- spent by a single group on newspaper ads alone -- is more than 5 percent of Morano's claimed total for all "skeptic" funding. Imagine what the gamut of conservative groups are spending.

Morano's source for the $50 billion number, meanwhile, is Australian "skeptic" Robert Carter. The article that Morano cites in which Carter asserts that $50 billion has been spent "on research into global warming since 1990" offers no documentation to support the claim."

In other words, no documentation, outside of this guy from Australia, to support the 50 billion figure.. A March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community."

I'm sure you also noticed the claim that 19 million is low for the amount Exxon and friends have given the skeptic crowd.

Numbers can be manipulated, looks like the right wing has done just that.