I think that regardless of whether you think that global warming is real or not the real issue with human acitvity and our use of fossil fuels should focus on clean air and clean water.Look at the pollution levels of our rivers and oceans, ie. mercury levels, caused by the burning of coal. Many people can deny the facts on global warming(understandable) but very few can deny the use of fossil fuels is a dirty polluting way of obtaining energy. There are better ways of getting energy, fossil fuels just happens to be conveinent.

vaguely relevant.

Lastly: the very few scientists who hold this perspective (i assume ur referring to the idea of no warming?) are largely discredited by the science community at large,

To Jody Langford, a highway patrolman who asserts that he nows something about science:

This topic has been hashed to death by both knowledgeable and (much more frequently) non-knowledgeable people in these forums. But I suggest this advice to both yourself and the many right leaning "ain't no global waming" crowd, before anything you say is to be even considered as even vaguely relevant.

First, I would suggest that you get yourself a phD in the sciences, particularly climatology, and get your work published in several major climatological science journals before your comments are to be considered even vaguely relevant to the topic. And until you have your new phD, Please recall that the opinions of a Cop are essentially worthless in the realm of scientific debate. The hard cold science of the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) firmly disagree with your opinions, as well as those of the discredited fringe scientists you guys keep digging up.

Second: I recommend that you use your new phD to fully refute the IPCC's findings. Once you've done this, I'll be all ears...until then, you're just another layman with a misconception about science.

Third: Recognize that yourself, the laymen who agree with you, and the (Very, very few) scientists who are arguing on your side of this alleged "debate" are all extremely out of touch with the science community on this matter.

Lastly: the very few scientists who hold this perspective are largely discredited by the science community at large, and if you wanted to, you could dig up some "scientists" who still claim that the world is flat, and that a witch can be unambiguously found out by checking their weight aganist that of a duck.
Wcience moves forward, but you're all still living in the middle ages. I don't blame you for your opinions on this, but rather, the lack of emphasis on science education in the K-12 system. Nonetheless, laymen's opinions in science don't count for anything, no more than my opinions on how fast your cop car can safely drive, or how many dunkin donuts you can consume in 5 minutes.

I have done lots of research on the topic of global warming, fossil fuels, and alternative energy sources. i'll put out some graphs and statistics.

Nice burn, and well-deserved. I call bullshit though. There's good science that refutes several of the widely circulated models that indicate humans are responsible for global warming. There's even good science that suggests that this warming trend is a continuation of the warming trend since the last ice age. Having read papers on the subject from both camps I think the only safe conclusions that can be drawn at this time are as follows:

Hmmmm....If what you say is true (and it ain't, I work across the hall from some of the most renowned climatologists on the planet, pal, and have talked with them extensively about the junk science that the right wing readers of this thread invariably dig out of the shit pile and try to perpetrate as real science) then I wonder why neither you nor the political hacks and their third rate works you guys keep alluding to haven't received any NSF FUNDING to elucidate for us all how humans have nothing, not one iota of involvement, responsibility, culpability for the current warming trend????
You know, there are still people who refuse to believe in the law of gravity. That doesn't make them fall any slower when they pop off of a climb.

In conclusion; This whole infinitely repeating thread is really just a symptom of the very systematic, very cunning, very manuipultive war on science that the republican party has waged at the behest of their corporate masters. And I simply have no more time for it. Bush will be thrown out on his ear soon, Trent lott just resigned, and we can all look forward to a time when America regains it's status as a major world player in the envirnomental sciences, rather than staring glassy eyed and hopefully backward to the polyanna world view of the 1950s, when pollution was neither recognized nor given full weight as to it's effects.

Look, Mr Yokel: What I do for a living is called Science. I work for one of the most respected science institutes in the world. I am not a climatologist, but an ecologist. But some of the most well respected and well published research scientists in the field of climate change work in my division. Grants from NASA, NSF, etc etc etc.

Look up the work of Drs Ken Taylor and Joe Connel for starters if you wanna get in a pissing match. You will be clearly outgunned.

What yokels such as yourself do not understand is that science never "Proves" anything. But Science CAN say with a relatively high certainty that a particular environmental phenomenon (X) is related to human activity (y) with a 90 or 95 or 99% certainty.

And that is exactly what the IPCC report tells us; Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. So, Kneivel, are you actually smarter and more well read in climatology than the collective wisdom of the IPCC ? No, you're not. You're just a whining naysayer in over his head.

Are climate models infallible and do they show future trends exactly and without any variability? No. No model does that in virtually any field, dipshit.

Are you a parochioal yokel for not understanding the underlying certainty of anthropogenic climate change? Yes, with a P value <.000001. I'm laughing my ass off at you while you continue to shit in your own hands, then eat it, followed by feirce projectile vomiting of this fecal-vomitus matter at the knowledge of climate scientists everywhere.
Do you like the taste? Or do you have a political motive for eating all your own shit time and again?

Knievel -

Please reference an article in a respected, peer-reviewed journal that argues against global warming.

My heavens, those are some impressive slides. Wherever did you get them?

oism.com <--wonder who they are?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Let's see here....

"It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."

Well(!), that's a diversity of topics. Education, Political science, Survivalist studies, and climatology. Considering that the founder is trained as a biochemist and knows nothing about any of those things, they must have a large staff in order to be experts in such a variety of fields.

No? oh.... only 6 members. And only one of them is actually paid. hmmmmm


what else we got?
.. conservative christian organization, big into homeschooling... website links to creationist groups... involved in circulating a very deceptive "scientists petition" a while back that got lots of conservative press... claims 6 faculty members, but really only one paid staff member (the founder and president), their "Professor of Electrical Engineering" is a computer consultant from Idaho (It's like Silicon valley, but different!...)

... and awwwwww.... isn't that cute. The founder's sons, Zach and Noah are members of the board (gotta pad that resume kiddo's!).

Wow... you know what you go here?

(No!)

Yup, you got yer self a group of hacks!

(Hacks! But I dust and vacuum every day!)

Sorry ma'am, but hacks are a tricky bunch. And these aren't your regular hacks, wandering about lecturing folks about things they know nothing about. No, what you've got here are 'ideologically motivated hacks.'

(Oh dear me! What will the neighbors think! Whatever will I do?)

Now don't you worry, this ain't your fault. These are tricky little bastards they are. They sneak in, arguing in bad faith with junk science in order to support a political agenda. An honest person like yourself is liable to get caught up by them as you're a trusting type who doesn't suspect folks of engaging in boldfaced lies for ideological reasons.

(And to think... I trusted them!)

Now in the future, just be more careful. I'll wipe this infestation out, but they're gonna come back in the future. Just be sure to check your sources each and every time. It's a brave new world out there and the internet has forced everyone to be their own fact-checker and editor. Also, refrain from strong drink - except on days that end in "y".

(Oh I will! Whatever can I do to repay you?)

Well..... there is one thing.... but... naw... I just couldn't... wouldn't be right...

(Oh... please tell me!)

*Porn music starts playing - fade to black (sorry folks, this is a family show)*

Dr. William Gray (Colo. State guy who does the hurricane predictions) finds lots of flaws in the APGW argument, and posits that we'll see global COOLING, and "research arguing that humans are causing global warming is “mush” based on unreliable computer models."

Despite all this, I think that reasonable measures to reduce pollution and fossil fuel use should be promoted, if for no other reason that it's smart geopolitics and good use of resources

My feelings are this.

lets say there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, should we abandon all attempts to curb pollution?

Really, no matter the cause off global warming, changing wasteful and filthy practices can and will lead to a better and more sustaintable planet.

So I think using global warming as a reason to become less wasteful to a non renewable resource (your planet) is a good thing.

Look, Mr Yokel: What I do for a living is called Science. I work for one of the most respected science institutes in the world. I am not a climatologist, but an ecologist. But some of the most well respected and well published research scientists in the field of climate change work in my division. Grants from NASA, NSF, etc etc etc.

Look up the work of Drs Ken Taylor and Joe Connel for starters if you wanna get in a pissing match. You will be clearly outgunned.

What yokels such as yourself do not understand is that science never "Proves" anything. But Science CAN say with a relatively high certainty that a particular environmental phenomenon (X) is related to human activity (y) with a 90 or 95 or 99% certainty.

And that is exactly what the IPCC report tells us; Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. So, Kneivel, are you actually smarter and more well read in climatology than the collective wisdom of the IPCC ? No, you're not. You're just a whining naysayer in over his head.

Are climate models infallible and do they show future trends exactly and without any variability? No. No model does that in virtually any field, dipshit.

Are you a parochioal yokel for not understanding the underlying certainty of anthropogenic climate change? Yes, with a P value <.000001. I'm laughing my ass off at you while you continue to shit in your own hands, then eat it, followed by feirce projectile vomiting of this fecal-vomitus matter at the knowledge of climate scientists everywhere.
Do you like the taste? Or do you have a political motive for eating all your own shit time and again?

[quote "jmlangford"]A while back there was a post by someone lamenting the fact that us [i]evil[/i] humans were melting all the good ice routes by our lifestyle. He complained about the glaciers melting, etc. and that we were causing it. I couldn't find that thread, so I am starting a new one.

The information below was obtained from a presentation by [b]Dr. Patrick Michaels, Climatologist, University of Virginia[/b] titled "The American Legislative Exchange Council Energy Sustainability Project". The presentation was made on July 2, 2002 at the California State Capitol.

[b]*There is currently no known mechanism which can stop global warming.

*The earth has been on a macro-warming trend since the 1600's. That makes it difficult to blame industry for most of about 300 years or so.

*Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would void only 7/100 of one degree of global warming by 2050. Scientifically this infinitesimal temperature change is undetectable.

*Most apparent "global warming" occurs over Siberia and extreme north-western North America where most of the earth's coldest and driest air is.

*The Kyoto Protocol was being pushed by some in an attempt to tear down the United States' trade advantage because there is no trading bloc large enough to compete with our productivity.

*Warming in the past 100 years was 0.8 degrees. Reliable estimates show a continued trend of warming 1.6 degrees over the next 100 years.

*The mean temperature of Antartica is unchanged. Some parts have warmed while other parts have cooled.[/b]

So the next time your ice route is a little shorter, just accept it as a cycle of nature and don't try to ruin the great American way of life by implementing scientifically unsound regulations.

[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-30 20:28 ][/quote]


My feelings are this.

lets say there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, should we abandon all attempts to curb pollution?

Really, no matter the cause off global warming, changing wasteful and filthy practices can and will lead to a better and more sustaintable planet.

So I think using global warming as a reason to become less wasteful to a non renewable resource (your planet) is a good thing.

Driving cars with more fuel effeciency is a good thing, buying local food is a good thing, being more energy effecient at home is a good thing.

Why? Because if nothing else it saves long term money.

I know when a person has cash to burn because they don't curse when they finish filling up the H2. Being wasteful has become a sign of affluence but the reality is wasteful is wasteful, and it's not a god given or consitutional right to destroy the planet, just because YOU can.

It amazes me how selfish some people are.

If you're side was as strong as you claim, they wouldn't use character assassination and petty insults. Questioning science have never deserved this sort of an attack.