Thread: A question about polar ice caps

Originally Posted by arby

I'm sick of people who watch Inconvenient Truth (a biased film) and think they know everything about the issue. Here is its counterpart. It is also a biased film obviously but will shed major light on how people are doubting global warming.

Be careful of citing references without checking up on them. The film you cite has been highly criticized for misrepresenting data from a large number of respected scientific sources INCLUDING SCIENTISTS IN THE FILM.

For example, Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, who was featured in the film called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." He said his quotes were completely taken out of context, and edited to fit in with a running theme of which he had no idea. Extracted from his response:

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making--- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

For his complete response, please see this. He is suing the filmmakers, by the way.

Regarding the director of the film, Martin Durkin, this is a man with no scientific background who tried to convince people that silicone breast implants were actually healthy for women. According to the Independent Television Commission who revied that program: "the programme makers "distorted by selective editing" the views of the interviewees and "misled" them about the "content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". The station that aired the program was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology.

Here's another fun program by Durkin where he duped scientists, edited their content, and completely misrepresented him. The growing list of scientists who appeared to be supporting his data but who openly speak out against him as a crank an manipulator is an embarrasing testiment to the weak scientific evidence presented in his programs.

So please, do you have anything to present as evidence that isn't so easily dismissed as completely fraudulent?

Yes, I said it was a biased film (although, perhaps more then I thought) But it outlines the points against warming. Thats the value I see in it. Not the stupid propaganda "Its a government conspiracy" component.

First off, I would like to say I agree with Joe. I would love to see a cleaner earth CO2 or not. But I hate seeing CO2 being classified as a pollutant. Its part of the natural cycle. If it were oxygen instead, would we be reacting differently?

Now, my case comprises of 2 things. Basic chemistry and basic astronomy.

First off, what temperature would the earth be without the sun? Around -273? (absolute zero) Thats about 300 degree difference . 0.2 degrees is 0.06666 % of the temperature that it gives us. Now, we know the sun is very "unstable" for the lack of a better word. It fluctuates quite a bit. 0.0666% can easily be within that range. This is how temperature rises.

Now for the chemistry component. The ocean level rises and releases CO2. This is why temperature and CO2 remain largely together

Oh, and to everyone, air people's dirty laundry elsewhere. This should be a scientific discussion, not a political one. Attacks on people such as Al Gore or others are a no-no unless its directly relevant like Skysaw's was.

Arby,

Thank you for keeping this well-mannered and on topic. I can appreciate an opposing view if it appears considered. I too was wondering how whether Gore was an "asshole" or not was relevant.

Just to be clear, I have no disillusionment about C02, what it is, and how it's important. I disagree with someone who says that C02 itself is a pollutant. But it does weigh in the balance of our ecosystem, and its level is certainly affected by pollutants (as it is by heat, biological decay, breathing and other things).

The reason C02 figures centrally in the Global Warming warnings is that computer models have shown what devestation can be wrought when the levels are very high. Are we as humans responsible for all of the C02 in the air? Not by a longshot. The question then becomes "are we responsible for enough of it to tip the balance unfavorably?" -- and here science suggests heavily that we are.

Over the millions of years on Earth, many huge changes in climate have occurred. We are very lucky because it was necessary to start life in the first place. But the conditions we have right now largely determine the quality of our lives. The Earth will change whether we are the cause or not, but we need to be careful not to push and make that change happen much earlier than it would have otherwise. Once we lose the delicate balance we need for humanity to survive, it's all over. The fact that the planet could bring that to us without our help is no reason to speed up the process.

Originally Posted by arby

I think its about just time that I wade in here.



Even if there isn't an article against the Greenhouse effect (which I highly doubt. It would be a massacre of the scientific process) There are plenty of articles that state that the warming is coming from other sources such as the sun. Stop taking the choice wording from inconvenient truth and open your frigging eyes to the facts.



NO NO NO NO NO

There are plenty who oppose increased warming by CO2 emissions. EVEN THE CO-FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE, Patrick Moore speaks up against it.

Yeah, thanks for saying that, I'm getting pretty sick of hearing this whole 'no scientists disagree' thing.

There's constant doubters in all areas of science. To think that there could possibly be a consensus on a subject as controversial as this one shows as absolute lack of understanding for the way science works. ._o

I picked up Gore's book today, by the way. There's no doubt about it; the thing shamelessly makes logical fallacies and asserts unscientific nonsense and lies.

For example, saying that the photosynthesis of trees is the only reason why increasing temperature would increase CO2 concentration...

By the way, I'm not so hot on biology; but I know that the respiration of trees is more important than the photosynthesis, and trees do produce carbon dioxide as well as oxygen. Anybody know which gas the trees emit a greater proportion of?

I have no disillusionment about C02, what it is, [...]

Sorry, but that's kind of ironic and really makes the rest of what you say sound a bit silly. You evidently have no grasp whatsoever about the fundamental basics of what it is.

I'm not trying to abuse you here or anything by the way, you never claimed to be an expert Chemist and of course there is no obligation to be one.

But yes, it's not 'Oh' as in zero; C02 doesn't mean 'carbon type zero two' or whatever you think: it's 'Oh' as in O, for Oxygen; CO2 means 'one carbon, two oxygens per molecule'.

Carbon Dioxide; the clue's in the name. Di being a prefix meaning 'two'.

Just an interesting example on why the people often really don't understand at all what's going on... and therefore are just repeating what's been told to them, unable to question its validity.

Originally Posted by Xei

But yes, it's not 'Oh' as in zero; C02 doesn't mean 'carbon type zero two' or whatever you think: it's 'Oh' as in O, for Oxygen; CO2 means 'one carbon, two oxygens per molecule'.

Gee, way to nitpick on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Never mind that you couldn't be more wrong to assume I don't know what the 'O' is for... something I learned in 11th-grade science class which was, let's see, twenty-six years ago.

By the way, I noticed you had no comment on the dubious nature of the science in the "Swindle" film that I pointed out. Perhaps my Zero was somehow more noticeable than the other several paragraphs of relevant content.

Holy crap, a string of decent posts. I'd have thought it impossible in this thread.

I think half the whole scare portion comes from lack of knowledge of CO2 before hand. I mean, a while ago you could have asked somebody on the street and they would have said "CO2? Is that A band?". When global warming came and people first heard of it, it was only in a negative way.

I bet theres a large number of people who think that CO2 is actually lethal to humans. I sorta want to go around polling people if they think CO2 would hurt them if they breathed it in. I wonder what sort of results you would get.... because I think too many people think of industrial smoke and car exhaust when they think of CO2.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Gee, way to nitpick on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Never mind that you couldn't be more wrong to assume I don't know what the 'O' is for... something I learned in 11th-grade science class which was, let's see, twenty-six years ago.

Okay, but I'm at a loss as to why you repeatedly pressed the zero key if your understanding is so solid? And to say that the molecular structure of carbon dioxide has 'nothing to do with the discussion at hand' is equally odd.

By the way, I noticed you had no comment on the dubious nature of the science in the "Swindle" film that I pointed out. Perhaps my Zero was somehow more noticeable than the other several paragraphs of relevant content.

Yep, it was. The rest just seemed to imply that because some science appeared in a film which was made by somebody who has been shown to be biased, that the science is therefore 'completely fraudulent', which is a specific type of logical fallacy, by the way.

But anyway, I'd rather debate the science than the people behind it. That just complicates things way beyond what needs be.

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay, but I'm at a loss as to why you repeatedly pressed the zero key if your understanding is so solid? And to say that the molecular structure of carbon dioxide has 'nothing to do with the discussion at hand' is equally odd.

Let's not be flippant here. You know perfectly well what was referred to by "nothing to do with." And not that it makes any difference whatsoever, but I use a ten-key regularly, and it's simply faster to type '02' on it than left-hand-shift, right hand-'O', left-hand '2.' Same reason neither of us used the traditional subscript for the 2. /shrug

Yep, it was. The rest just seemed to imply that because some science appeared in a film which was made by somebody who has been shown to be biased, that the science is therefore 'completely fraudulent', which is a specific type of logical fallacy, by the way.

"Seemed to imply" is a very easy conclusion to reach for someone who didn't read it. The point I was making is that the very scientists that supposedly were speaking out against the warming scare were in fact on the other side of the argument, by their own words. If the aim in putting up that link was to prove that there are scientists who say it's not happening, the attempt failed miserably. Which means we have yet to see on this thread credible scientists named who run against the trend.

I'd rather debate the science than the people behind it. That just complicates things way beyond what needs be.

Your thanking Arby for posting that some scientists disagree proves that this is not the case. I could further point out how you earlier dragged Gore through the mud. But never mind... You want to talk about science? Fine, let's talk about science. But it can't be done in a vacuum, or any crazy theory is as good as the next. I haven't personally conducted any experiments in this realm, so I guess I'll have to rely on the ones you've conducted. Can you present your findings please?

Just thought I'd toss in a link to information directly from what I think we've been refering to as "the scientists", no? Figured it might put more focus on reliable sources as opposed to politician and celebrity oppinions.

(From the looks of it there's enough info here to keep this thread going till the next flood.)

Thanks, Joe.

On that topic, here's a direct link to a FAQ regarding their findings in the latest (Feb 2007) report: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf

The FAQ is quite a bit easier to digest than the entire report, and answers a lot of questions for those interested in the science behind it all. I'd love for someone to show me some hard data disproving any of their findings.

The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change would not exist if the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change were to say that there is no such thing as Climate Change, and everybody on the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change would lose their job.

The IPCC is in short biased, and guilty of pretty foul practice. Try searching for the hockey stick graph which they repeatedly used in what I think was their last (but I'm unsure about that) report - the graph was pretty much pivotal, in fact - only to later admit under severe criticism that it was hugely misrepresentative. Or the way in which their '2500 of the top scientists', or a number of that kind of magnitude, is largely consisted of scientists with no knowledge of climatology, and are therefore completely illegitimate in this field. Plus those who actually disagree with the hypothesis are still listed. And have their requests to have their names removed denied.

'The scientists' to whom I refer are certainally not those who constitute the IPCC, in response to that rhetorical comment.

Unfortunately pdfs kill my PC... but looking at some of their statements turns up glaring flaws.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal", for example. This is just... unbelievable, a ridiculous claim. After millions upon millions of years of all sorts of irrational tectonic and atmospheric activity on our planet, sun flares, and God knows what else; and they claim that the globe's warming faster now that ever before!?

Firstly, there are absolutely no records for global temperatures going back to the beginning of the planet's history!

Secondly, volcanic activity in the past has overwhelmed our contributions to CO2.

And... ahrgh, I'm done with that point, there's just no justifying such a statement. And to have it as a pivotal statement in a report of worldwide significance... jeez.

And then you've got the whole 'the man-made warming theory is 90% likely to be causing most of the warming'.

That again... is just pathetic, since when have you been able to statistically define the certainty of a bipolar scientific hypothesis!? Where did they even get this number from?

Oh, and then there's this whole thing where the G8 leaders have singed an agreement which says 'there is no scientific doubt about the warming hypothesis'... oh come on, you can completely prove that this is a shameless lie by just listening to the number of scientists who've expressed doubt. Surely nobody's going to back this one up?

Man, I've had it with this crap.

I keep waiting for the day when one of our leaders comissions an independent enquiry into the issue using some proper climatologists who've made a significant and testable contribution to the field, but it's just not coming.

Which is annoying, because there are MPs in Britain who think it's a load of hype too.

Edit: Googled and found this at the top, if you're looking for a source.

I really hope skysaw isn't still in denial that there is... well, denial. It shows a complete lack of understanding about scientific method, which that article elucidates quite nicely. And also, how can somebody saying that the warming theory is the mad result of eco-warriors and ultra-conservative government groups possibly be taken out of context? You're just making stuff up now, you can't deny there were scientists in that documentary against the theory if you actually watched all of it.

Edit: Googled and found this at the top, if you're looking for a source.

Good read, and thank you for the post. Do you have anything more recent? The predictions made at that time (2001) by the IPCC have already come to pass. Perhaps a more recent denial can hold you for another six years.

I really hope skysaw isn't still in denial that there is... well, denial.

Absolutely not, or we wouldn't be having a discussion here. I sure do question the motives of denial, however.

And also, how can somebody saying that the warming theory is the mad result of eco-warriors and ultra-conservative government groups possibly be taken out of context? You're just making stuff up now, you can't deny there were scientists in that documentary against the theory if you actually watched all of it.

Perhaps before you make more accusations, such as my "making stuff up," you should actually read from the link I provided. I repeat it here for your convenience: Carl Wunsch's public response. (Yes, he was one of the scientists in the film.)

Oh, and while we're on Richard Lindzen (your link), let's play a little game of follow the money, shall we? Take a look here, please: Richard S. Lindzen.
Looks like he got tired of writing phony science saying tobacco smoke is harmless. I guess Exxon-Mobile pays more than Philip Morris anyway, so it's a step up for him. If you can't smell the blatant conflict of interest here, I'm not sure how else to get to you.

It's all about the money, folks. What scientist on the payroll for major oil and tobacco companies is going to tell us we're polluting too much?

Yeah, that's fine, I understood that, but he wasn't all of the scientists in the film, if you get my meaning. There were clearly some who denied it; and clearly at least one who did not, as you say. I was just replying to your comment that there was no evidence of scientists denying it.

And it strikes me now; okay, you've got a scientist complaining that a documentary miscommunicated its intentions to him and took his quotes out of context.

But above, you've got a major player in the IPCC complaining that the world authority on climate change not only removed his notes that there was significant doubt, but moreover, edited them so that they said that doubt was becoming less. That really does seem like some pretty rotten bias there, to me... and then they refused to take his name off the list, too. I'm deeply suspicious about the whole thing, and I'm definitely not one to jump to any conclusions involving conspiracies (9/11 was due to two planes flown by terrorists, UFOs are due to attention seekers, etcetera...).

By the way, what would you say are my motives for denial, if that's what you meant? Because, like I said, I've all ready reduced my CO2 emissions, so this is all pretty inconsequential to me... and if there is such a thing as spiralling man-made warming, hey, I'm in an area where there'll be a Mediterranean climate.

(My connections to oil barons are minimal).

Edit: You realise that there's no evidence at all there?

There've been reports in the papers like this before; there was something about hundreds of scientists being sent bribes via post to deny global warming, but when they actually asked the scientists who'd been so noble as to refuse the bribes to stand up, there were no letters at all...

Originally Posted by Xei

I was just replying to your comment that there was no evidence of scientists denying it.

If that's the wording I used, it was hyperbole and I apologize. However, I'd still like to know why those speaking against the IPCC's findings all seem to have connections to oil companies.

By the way, I'm sure you were not aware that the website you linked to, "Heartland Institute" received over $790,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006. Or that an ExxonMobil executive serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor. This information is a matter of public record. When you complain about bias, and only have these references to put up for examination, you are hurting your own cause.

Oh, and in case you feel the need to say "there's no evidence there at all" on this one. The money given to Heartland is clearly listed on ExxonMobile's own website.

Climate change summary:

Originally Posted by pj

In one of the two forums I participate in from time to time, an
off-topic discussion has started about the whole "Global Warming" thing.
I was asked point-blank how a "reasonable person" such as myself could
hold the views I do. (The questioner doesn't know me very well, obviously.)

Here is how I tried to answer that. It isn't eloquent or concise, but it
does give a pretty fair outline of my secular view of government:

--

Maybe you are finding my arguments annoying because they really do come
more from an anarchist perspective. I'm not a true anarchist, though I
was at one point. Some government, I believe, is necessary - simply
because of human nature. Sadly, human nature will also ALWAYS exploit
the power of government.

Let me sum things up as concisely as I can, in the most general terms
possible:

Here we have the government - US, "world community," and most troubling,
the UN, telling us there is this huge crisis that is threatening life as
we know it.

Those governments then tell us the only solution is more government -
and GLOBAL government at that, via Kyoto!!!

Isn't your BS detector blowing right off the scale here? Mine is... and
has been since this whole things started a very long time ago.

One of the headline stories for Time Magazine yesterday was "Climate
Change: Case Closed". Oh, really? We have finally reached that point in
human history where we can close a line of scientific questioning with
absolute certainty? Apparently so, when the "solution" is to pillage the
strongest wealth creators in the world.

If Kyoto is a solution, why does it exempt China and Russia, two of the
most "egregious" CO2 producers in the world because of their still
backwards but explosively growing economies?

Even if there were a real crisis - be it this or any other - government
is the LAST place rational people should be investing their trust to
come up with solutions. That being said, government is the LAST source I
am going to believe and put any faith in to discern crises in the first
place. People thrive in SPITE of government, if they can. Businesses
prosper in SPITE of government, when they can. Government produces no
wealth... it is a parasite, existing primarily to increase its own power
and wealth. (When was the last time any politician retired poor?)

You asked why a "reasonable person" such as myself would hold these
views. I don't know how else to put it - other than to begin to get into
some of my personal experiences with involvement in research and
activism, which I'm not going to do here. These are the views of one man
- and apparently not so terribly convincing views as all that. I DO have
a fear for our future and some very real crises - government growth,
curtailment of liberty and the ability of humans to create wealth, forge
their own futures and create their own solutions, government
indebtedness, economic manipulation... and mostly, the ever growing
promise that "they" will take something from you and give it to me if I
just play along with them.

Perhaps you are finding out I'm not really so reasonable as all that. I
have been called an "Extremist" - back when that word was originally
being demonized way back in the early '90's. I wear that label proudly,
as I earned it by loving liberty and through my faith in humans to solve
their own problems - if they are simply allowed the freedom to do so.

That's enough of a dissertation for this morning. I'm off to another
LONG day of creating wealth for myself and my family... after the
gumment takes their not so insignificant bites out of it.

Originally Posted by Howie

Climate change summary: -- etc, etc, etc...

Howie, I have no idea who's original text this is or if it matches your own views or not, but I suppose it really doesn't matter as it adds absolutely no value to this thread at all. At least Xei has put some thought into his replies, we've at least we've had some intelligent discourse concerning science, politics, etc.

But this "I will not believe it because the government says it's true," is a laughable way to live your life. Aren't you aware that governments don't agree with each other? What do you do in that case?

The US's official policy goes quite against supporting Global Warming. Does your government-wacko detector filter out Bush for some reason?

Originally Posted by skysaw

Howie, I have no idea who's original text this is or if it matches your own views or not, but I suppose it really doesn't matter as it adds absolutely no value to this thread at all. At least Xei has put some thought into his replies, we've at least we've had some intelligent discourse concerning science, politics, etc.

But this "I will not believe it because the government says it's true," is a laughable way to live your life. Aren't you aware that governments don't agree with each other? What do you do in that case?

The US's official policy goes quite against supporting Global Warming. Does your government-wacko detector filter out Bush for some reason?

As you can see I have quoted pj on this summary.
No value?
What value have you added that I have not heard three hundred times?
Perhaps you should try to think outside of conventional thinking.

I myself think looking at the largest source of public information is pretty imperative.
I could keep posting little excerpts on rising water temperatures and the like but an overview of the source I think adds a powerful perspective.
Sorry to disappoint.

Originally Posted by Howie

[COLOR=Teal]
As you can see I have quoted pj on this summary.

Who is PJ? Why should I know PJ? Is there anything relevant that you can tell me about PJ? You just plonked down a quote, and expected us to understand what it meant to you.

No value?
What value have you added that I have not heard three hundred times?
Perhaps you should try to think outside of conventional thinking.

Gee, I don't know. How much of it exactly HAVE you heard three hundred times? Am I supposed to know this too? Are you telling me you read everything I wrote and don't have a single constructive criticism of any of my points or references? Come on... at least TRY to present your argument here. So far you have presented no evidence, no citations, no science, nothing but a mixed-up philosophy that has nothing to do with the subject. Nobody is impressed when you run around flapping your arms yelling "Whee! I'm an anarchist! Look at me bash the government!" Why are we supposed to care?

I myself think looking at the largest source of public information is pretty imperative.

Again... why be so mysterious. Come out and TELL us what you think this source of public information is, and how it fits in. I cited quite a bit of public information and challenge you to discredit it in some way other than your natural suspicion of public figures.

I could keep posting little excerpts on rising water temperatures and the like but an overview of the source I think adds a powerful perspective.

Very hard to get a powerful perspective when the source in question hasn't been identified any further than "PJ." Is PJ the new world authority on climate?

[quote=skysaw;449227]Who is PJ? Why should I know PJ? Is there anything relevant that you can tell me about PJ? You just plonked down a quote, and expected us to understand what it meant to you.[quote]

Why would this matter. It is a perspective. Do I know your sources?
Do you? OR ~ Google?

Gee, I don't know. How much of it exactly HAVE you heard three hundred times?

Try the search method

Very hard to get a powerful perspective when the source in question hasn't been identified any further than "PJ." Is PJ the new world authority on climate?

Please tell me who the WORLD AUTHORITY is. Then I can put my idioms aside and we can just clarify the answers, No?

Originally Posted by Howie

Why would this matter. It is a perspective. Do I know your sources? Do you? OR ~ Google?

Ok, so it's a random opinion you copied and pasted from someone you don't even know. Thanks for clearing that up. I just wanted to know whose opinion it was... pretty standard stuff when you're trying to have healthy discourse that actually makes sense.

Try the search method

Shame on me. I was completely unaware that there was a search engine that had the option of finding "everything that Howie has heard 300 times." That really could come in handy.

Please tell me who the WORLD AUTHORITY is. Then I can put my idioms aside and we can just clarify the answers, No?

Apparently it's PJ, since his opinion is good enough to just copy in whole and present it to the community without comment. It would seem that his views are so clear to you that you don't have a single disagreement or alternative perspective to his. Or could it be that you just don't have a perspective of your own? Honestly, I would like to know since you still haven't presented one.

PJ
A Moderator
Also another member, Peregrinus
Both have very interesting observations on the issue of climate change.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...Global+warming
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...Global+warming
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...Global+warming

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...hlight=climate

I was looking for some stuff about the guy who out-bet the MET office when I cam upon this. I couldn't have found anything that demonstrates my view on the whole issue and leaves me not much else to say. And thus I leave this topic (which is falling apart at the seams again) for a while.

Originally Posted by arby

I was looking for some stuff about the guy who out-bet the MET office when I cam upon this. I couldn't have found anything that demonstrates my view on the whole issue and leaves me not much else to say. And thus I leave this topic (which is falling apart at the seams again) for a while.

arby.
I really have no idea why skysaw has taken so much offense over me referencing information just as every one else has. It is open discussion. If I had said it was NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's) I question if it would have been an issue.
Quite frankly I feel the discussion needed a twist. As you can see I posted several other like posts.
Also it seems that my initial post may have been over looked as well.
I have posted some other links and the discussion can come together very well if we keep an open mind.
So I urge you not to leave the discussion.