In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 526
Online now 560 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
When the issue became a political argument because it fit within certain parameters of world order thinking, science was lost. There was a presumption that the Earth was warming, and an all too logical assumption Man was causing it. Add to that the falsehoods told by the formerly premier University on climate in the UK, and we lost any opportunity to really answer the real questions.
To me the Earth is in a warming trend, like many other such trends in the past. Few would debate that as not being accurate. Where the rubber meets the road is the proportionate causes of the warming: what is Man's contibution, and whether Mankind can, or is even willing to, make changes which can materially alter the warming trend and positively affect climate.
I take the position we have only one good old Mother Earth, and it should be Man's role within his capabilities to husband the resources, including the environment in which we all live. Unfortunately, I have zero faith in Mankind to do so. Already green house gas exceptions are made for 'emerging' Countries; China and India, massive exporters of CO2 flat refuse to take any action in concert with other Countries. The US is a major contributor to green house gases, but why should America bankrupt its economies with crippling regulations and sanctions when competing Countries in a global economy will not Furthermore, there is NO computer with the necessary capacity to input the thousands of variables necessary to predict climate change (all efforts to do so have failed).
So I become the pragamatist out of necessity. There is NO concensus on how much Man is contributing to climate change, nor how, if anything, Man will be willing to do to curb his appetite for carbon based energy consumption, so that we might positively affect climate. I am unwilling as a US citizen see my Country diminish is GNP, and thus is wealth, because it is through that wealth which protects us from real threats against us.
So Mankind will have to pay the price, if one is to be paid, for allowing unscrupulous researchers and politicians plus paper selling hysterics in the media to seize on this issue, taint it, and cause the science to be lost in a sea of shit! We will get what we deserve, imo!
This post was edited by tagterp 2 years ago
Pittsburgh Polar Bears could have been a kool name for the hockey team, eh.
all I know is I've been freezing my ass off during this long dark winter.
They are guessing that the thickness of tree rings directly correlates to precise temperatures hundreds of years ago...but then, when the tree ring thicknesses don't correlate so well in recent times, they switch to temperature readouts from selected site thermometers. Who picks those sites? (I honestly don't know, but given the Climategate methods, I'm distrustful.)
Doesn't sound too scientific to me
I agree totally with what Tag posted, and your main clue that this is more politics than science is to watch for the "what do we do about it" answers if one accepts the premise of man-made global warming.
The answers always center around taxation, artificial (non-free) market controls, etc., as well as wealth redistribution from wealthy to poorer countries...all the while, countries like China and Russia are left out of the discussion of to whom these remedies pertain.
When I find someone who's proposing further non-biased study, as well as innovation, entrepreneurial and market-based responses to the problem, that's when I start to listen. And by "problem" I don't mean global warming; I mean the transition to cleaner, renewable energy.
This post was edited by frode 2 years ago
Hey Tag, glad you are participating in this thread. It's like old times from the ACC Town Square. I actually agree with much of what you say. I try to separate the political aspects of this issue from the scientific. One of the many reasons I don't care about the political aspect is because I think this problem is not solvable. The entirety of human civilization is built on the foundation of energy. There is simply no way to replace that foundation in time to make a difference and even if we could it might already be too late.
First regarding your reality vs alarm graph, ask yourself why the chart begins with 1989. The answer is that denialists are lying to you with data. See the chart I've included below and so this clearly demonstrated. Here's what a Nobel laureate has to say about your graph:
"What a thoroughly dishonest and immoral response," Dr. Kevin Trenberth said via email. The chart used is an "extremely misleading figure of global temperatures that show only values for the past dozen years." Dr. Trenberth's signature was at the top of a list of 38 climate scientists who countered the WSJ's initial article, and he is currently a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He's also shared a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change."
Neither you nor I are climate scientists so a back and forth between us on the specifics of the science would be silly. Suffice to say that the real experts are unambiguous about climate change. There is a reason people challenge climate change but not black holes. And that is that balck holes do not contradict any political or religious dogma. There is no reason to believe that climate scientists are conspiring or exaggerating or lying or are incompetant other than a particular political bent and dogma demand that their conlusions be rejected.
This is much the same with the intelligent design vs evolution "debate". there is no reason to doubt or deny the truth of evolution other than the fact that it contradicts some folks religious dogma. When a person says that don't "believe" in evolution, we can safely make some assumptions about that persons religious ideology.
Another similarity is that deniers use of trying to use gotcha questions. I heard a creationist demand the names of every creature between the first living organism on earth to humans. The inability to provide an answer was all the proof this creationist needed to declare evolution to be false. Science will never provide all of the answers. Science is based on a preponderance of evidence, evidence based on observation and experimentation. It is not a bunch of PHds sitting aroung a table making wild guesses and pulling assumptions out of their butts. If you are waitng for someone to say 64.35% of global warming is caused by human activity, this is not going to happen. But if are are really objectively interested in the overwhelming evidence, it is out there and the NASA pages I linked earlier are a good start. But then again, NASA might be in on the scam also.
SA, if you are truely interested in the Mike's Nature trick question, then watch this video. Also at the back end of it there is discussion of Dr. Muller whom I referenced earlier in this thread. Like many of you, Dr. Muller was outraged by the "hide the decline" email and put together his own team to do temperature reconstructions at Berkley. This effort was whole-heartedly endorsed by Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat fame. Be sure to finish the segment on Muller.
Support Climate Denial Crock of the Week, go to:
Briffa 1998 data
IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Chapter 6 Paleoclimate
Briffa, et al, Nature, 1998
Briffa et al Royal Society 1998
Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1999
Why does the chart begin with 1989? It's pretty simple - that's when the first IPCC report came out. The chart was created to address the issue of how accurate the IPCC's predictions have been, not the level of warming or cooling over the past 50 years. If you're trying to test how successful the IPCC's predictions have been, I think looking at data starting when the IPCC started making predictions makes some sense. I'm not sure what chart Dr. Trenberth is looking at - the chart shows values for the past 23 years, not the past dozen. His response is typical though of AGW proponents when confronted with criticism - denounce the critics in loudest terms by calling them "dishonest" and "immoral," question their motives, and claim they're not qualified to speak on the subject because they're not "real" experts. I see you take the same tack by calling researchers that disagree with AGW pejorative terms like "denialists" and charging that they are "lying" to people. Likewise, any non-scientists that question AGW must only be doing so because of some dogma or ideology, not because they have legitimate questions about the science.
And actually, there are people that question black holes (see below). Somehow I doubt, though, that other astrophysicists respond to guys like this by calling them "dishonest," "immoral," attacking their credentials, and taking polls on how many astrophysicists believe in black holes.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory physicist George Chapline
says that black holes do not really exist. Instead, he proposes that the mass of compact astrophysical objects consists of the same dark energy that makes up 60 percent of the mass of the universe.
Has there been a poll of every climate scientist in the world that arrives at this 97%? Because I'm pretty sure if you did such a poll, the number would be far less than 97%.
No, the 97% figure he cites comes from the NPAS paper he cited earlier. The sample they used was something like 900 climate scientists, and the paper explicitly said it was not intended to be representative of the climate science community as a whole. My understanding is that they picked those 900 scientists because they had published the most papers on climate science. It also should be noted that the proposition scientists were asked to agree on was the following: That it was "very likely" that "most" of the observed warming was caused by humans. Very vague terms that could hide substantial variance of opinion. Some may have thought "most" is 60%, some may have thought 90%. Likewise, some may have thought "very likely" is 75% chance, some may have thought 95%. The survey also did not ask the climate scientists for their opinions on the IPCC's predictions of future warming or the consequences of that warming.
This post was edited by MisterNiceGuy 2 years ago
Ah, I see. thanks
A different effect of CO2 emissions.
New research finds that the current rate of ocean acidification puts us on a track that, if continued, would likely be unprecedented in the planet's most recent 300 million years.
I'm pretty sure at this point, after the global warming hoax and the acid rain hoax, that nobody's listening.
Hey, for all the folks railing against "Big Oil's" subsidies, I agree, let's get rid of ALL energy subsidies.
The difference is, new and emerging industries often need government subsidies to help get off the ground. Nobody is going to accuse the fossil fuel industry of needing government help in order to achieve profitability.
Yeah, there's always some reason why Obama's friends need money. Funny, ain't it?
Just because you hold your hands up to your ears and start humming really loudly doesn't mean nobody is talking. But I do like that same old tired song you keep singing.
lol really? That is not a path you want to walk down as a republican. Rubio, your paragon of limited government, built a private airplane hanger in bumfuck Florida with state money as Speaker for a campaign supporter. Did you even pay attention during the entire Bush administration? No bid contracts, forkloads of money disappearing, or did you save all your outrage for the black guy?
I'm sure he has some left over for Nancy Pelosi, being a girl and all that.
From a few posts back that 97% is LOL worthy for sure. Sure I don't know that many people in the general area but the ones I do all don't buy the Al Gore or even Obama BS they pedal.
Renewable energy will come in time...when it works. Solar and wind are a joke right now as solutions and only used to make their buddies rich. O'Malley got caught doing it in Maryland last year with the wind farm crap. But I won't get going on this....I'll just continue to laugh at those who swear to me global warming...oh wait I'm sorry AGW... is happening right now since someone told them so. It is a lot like the sheep that don't know where Uganda is or who Kony is till now, which makes them experts
Would a doctor tells me I'm sick and need medication I don't laugh at him and say "well that's your opinion". You're right I don't know global warming is occurring, because I am not an expert, but I am also not an armchair scientist who acts like I know for sure that it isn't occurring either.
So, when a washed up political hack tells you the earth is burning up, you listen to HIM?
You do know that politicians are pretty much the opposite of science, right? And that when you bring politics into science, the science goes away...
I'm no expert and even my limited education tells me is that a PPM simple natural compond in the air does not determine the climate of a planet in proximity to a sun. It also tells me that a warmer world is much more inhabitable than a cold one.
Isn't this why everyone from the North of retirement age, moves to Fla? I was down in Sarasota area for about 10 days of 76 - 80 weather in Feb and it felt better during my backswing, than the usual 38 - 42 around here.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports