Global Warming?

So many Brainiacs live in hear that I thought it would be fun to see how many have been brainwashed.

Is the Greeny theory of anthropogenic Global Warming actually happening?

Has there even been any reliable evidence Global Warming has occurred in the last thirty years? Let’s assume we all know about the ending of the little ice age 300 hundred or so years ago.

If anthropogenic is happening, will its effects, given the evidence of previous warm periods, be helpful or harmful to life on Earth?
I asked Cecil this a year or so ago and the smartest man alive passed. Is there anyone here brave enough?

I hope my bad grammar got my points across. Sorry for the difficult read. The UN’s report. A report from the U.S. government.

There is also the National Science Foundation Report, ordered by President Bush, that concluded that global warming is real and is caused by human impact on the environment, primarly the emission of greenhouse cases. Couldn’t find a link, but I’m sure someone else will soon enough.

Now, of course those evil One World Government types are likely lying to us, but why would Bush order up a report that would also lie to us?


So, we have found one that does no reading of their own and relies on the media to “inform” them of the facts.

First the report from the IPCC you listed is from the politicians not the scientists of the IPCC. If you had bothered to read the science side of that report, you would have read a version with much less conclusive summaries; like the fact, their models are based on coupled non-linear systems that even they admit they have very little understanding of. BTW, their models, that predict all this warming, have yet to match historical data to ANY degree.

Here is a quote quoting this issue:

Hmmmm? Weird how this didn’t make it into the policy makers side of the IPCC report.

Here is a quote from Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor and one of the most respected Meteorologists in the world, and one of the authors of your cited NAS report:

Now then lets look at your NAS summary. You obviously didn’t read that either. I won’t bother you wiht my opinion, instead I will give you yet another quote from Richard Lindzen, one of the scientists that wrote the report:

Before you come back with more junkscience, why don’t you do some reading.

Here are some links to help.

GreyMatters - You’ll do better here if you don’t start off by trying to insult people. But thanks for the links.

Anyway, while I’m off reading tons of scientific literature, let me offer a few thoughts…

(1) The Greenhouse Effect (i.e., greenhouse gases’ effect on an atmosphere) is real…no debate there.
(2) The majority of the world’s scientific community believe that human-induced global warming is a real possibility…but lots of debate there.
(3) An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

By the way, human-induced Global Warming is not a “Greeny theory” (i.e., political)…it’s a concern identified by the scientific community. Certainly, non-scientist “environmentalists” have jumped all over it, but that does not invalidate the science.

The science is what I am talking about. It is the pseudo-political-science I have a problem with.

Let me respond to your points.

  1. Of course the greenhouse effect is a fact. Life on this planet would not exist without our atmosphere and ALL the gasses contained within insulating us from the frigid vaccum of space. [Life would, also, not exist without photosynthesis which couldn’t happen with out the “toxic pollutant” CO2.] It does this by collecting and holding on to the net energy intake from the sun. However, ALL the gasses in our atmosphere contribute to this effect, of which water is largest contributer. Science has very little data indeed about how much any of the gasses contribute to this effect, though. The IPCC report lists 11 variables contributing to anthropogenic Warming. The scientists rank the knowledge of these eleven effects on Global Warming. Nine of the varialbes they list they rank as having virtually no knowledge of there effects on Warming. The other two, Water and CO2, they rank as having a low understanding of theier effects.

  2. The media loves to waggle a petition signed by like two thousand scientists that says Global Warming is anthropogenic. Pretty convincing. Now look at the link I provided below, , which has close to 20,000 signatures of scientists that say Global Warming is far from being proven man made. Hmmmm? They do not say it isn’t possible that is true. But, they are not convinced the data proves it yet either.

  3. I completely agree. But, what are we preventing? Since the industrial revolution, then the Space Age and through the Information Age, Life Expectancy has more than doubled for Americans. Pollution has decreased in all areas of the world. Conservation of plants and animals is begining to become a Worldwide effort. Energy is availabe to more people than ever before providing heat in the winter and cold in the summer, preventing many deaths. Starvation is decreasing. Across the board our world is improving from technology, of which arguably the most effective is fossil fuel technology. Also, from the availabe evidence, the Earth had more biodiversity when it WAS warmer in its past. So, what are we preventing?

I still disagree about whether it is a Greeny theory.

Given the way that you warmly invite debate,

and the way you insult the Perfect Master,

I asked Cecil this a year or so ago and the smartest man alive passed. Is there anyone here brave enough?[\quote], the real question is why aren’t more people clamoring to discuss this with you.

Now, as a courtesy (look the word up, you might learn something new today), please address Sua’s question

Don’t ask us to slog through nearly a dozen different websites to find your arguments. While it is helpful to point to sources where your points are more fully developed, you should do more than just sit idly and point.

So, basically, we agree that more scientific research is needed. Obviously, climate systems are tough scientific nuts to crack. I think it was Carl Sagan who said something to the effect that this is a “uncontrolled experiment on the global atmosphere”. The results of Global Warming (if it even will occur) are uncertain, particularly since the degree of Warming is also uncertain. But we hear a lot more about potential negative effects than positive ones. You mentioned many of the benefits of modern technology…a related question would be whether the continued/expanded use of fossil-fuel technologies has some breaking point in a cost-benefit analysis (where ‘cost’ does not only refer to money but also such things as the effect on the environment & human health). In other words, fossil fuels have worked great so far, but will they always? Anyway, I’m beginning to ramble.

To answer Sua’s question, I don’t think the report lied to us. The report says the anthropogenic Warming hasn’t been proven. Read it and you will see.

I think the media lied to us about what the report said. Read the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Richard Lindzen, one of the NAS authors, about what he thinks about what the media had to say regarding the NAS’s summary. Or just read the un-filtered report yourself.

Why do think Bush decided to ignored Kyoto? Do you really think it was because our greatest scientists told him what the IPCC said was right?

You don’t know much about us younger people do you? We learned long ago from our “betters” that courtesey is just sweet smelling hypocracy.

I am truly sorry if I offended you Robb.

The Frederick Seitz site (oism) has some interesting numbers and graphs and references and all at All the other links seem to serve as “padding”. for GreyMatter’s beliefs.

What with Global warming and all be sure to remember:
-A mind is a terrible thing to baste !

GreyMatters wrote:

I note from your phrasing of this statement that these scientists do, apparently, believe that global warming is happening – they’re just not sure whether it’s man-made.

I don’t think I have stated what my beliefs are regarding this issue. I have definitally taken the unpopular stand, but I fail to see how that solidifies a belief statement.

I would like to rely on empirical data to make my observations. I know this is almost impossible, except for Vulcans, but I do my best. If you want data I can find plenty of that too. Just holler.

Oh yeah, Squink, that was a cute pun. Seriously!

Bush made up his mind about Kyoto before he even knew that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. Do you honestly think he could make a wise decision without knowing that tidbit ? After all the hemming and hawing and headscratching he did over the relatively simple issue of stem cell research it’s difficult to believe that he could have reexamined the global warming issue without some public evidence that he was thinking “real hard” about it.

The issue of whether anthropogenic global warming gas been proven or not is irrelevant here anyway. There is a ample evidence that a) we very well MAY be doing some nasty things to the climate and b)If we are, the time to start doing something about it is before things get too bad. We base a lot of national policies on the idea of “covering our butts”, why should the threat of global warming be treated any differently ?

Forgive my inaccurate dates.

Around 300 hundred years ago our pretty planet was in the grips of what was known as “The Little Ice Age.” Did you read the wonderfull story by Hans Christian Anderson, “The Silver Skates?” In it the canals of Holland are frozen over. Well, these same canals have not frozen over, for any extended period, for hundred or more years. I know this is a little anecdotel, but we have very little data regarding the Earth’s temperature during this time. We do know it was colder than it is now.

Since that time the Earth has warmed and it has continued to warm over the last century. There is a little conteroversy about the exact amount of warming, but not whether there was warming. Even today, with satelites measuring the temperature and thousands of quality thermometers all around the world, scientists can not agree on what the average Earth temperature is at any moment, any given day day or even in a year.

Strange how they can’t give us a decent temperature range right now, but they can “predict” the temperature with accuracy a hundred years from now using models with variables they claim to have a “low” understanding of in the real world.


Many of the data seem to indicate that humans are doing great damage to the environment.

If evidence arises dispoving that, good. But until it does, I’ll continue under that assumption.

I sure wish I knew what you get out of this, Greymatters.

I have yet to see an undisputed study which shows that there is an increase in temperature. Studies I’ve seen based on satellite observation show that there is no increase in temperature (no cite, but I can find them, if necessary).

Even if there was, there is only circumstantial evidence that such an increase is due to human activities. Atmospheric studies have only been conducted for 100, or so, years.

There are such things, after all, as natural cycles; the 22 year drought cycle was unknown until 40 or 50 years ago. To assume that we know everything about these cycles, and conclude that after such a short study time that any increase is human related is, really, arrogance on the part of the scientists.

Believe it or not, scientists don’t know everything. Some will even admit that.

Ya know, GreyMatters, in my younger days, I’d start a Pit thread about your absolute lack of manners, but I think that you aren’t going to be around long enough to make it worthwhile. Just for the record, I have read the scientific report of the IPCC. I have also extensively discussed the issue with a family members holding a Ph.D in chemical engineering, who has been involved in research projects on the subject of climate change (primarily climatic CO2 exchange mechanisms). Are you a scientist involved in these matters, or are you just relying on quotes and citations from the press? Oooh, your articles can beat up my articles!!

Finally, what NAS summary are you claiming I linked to? I linked to a USGRCP summary. If you are going to attack my links, at least attack the correct link.

Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.


Please do.

One such analysis is here.

Squink wrote:

Oops, that link appears to have an extraneous period at the end of it.

Here, let me fix it:

And yes, I agree that this webpage does have some good (or at least good-sounding) numbers and graphs on it.