Climate Change Consensus?

[IFG]

You may enjoy this article.

about Mr Gore

[see below]

When you guys go trolling for sympathetically spun links to paste, sometimes you trip yourselves, don't you?

What rattler linked the first time before he caught his little mistake

Cheers, IFG

[Guest woxof]

woxof, you expect me to believe some yahoo that brags about betting $6,000?

I can't believe you post this stuff.

"I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed"... compaired to what? The oil and gas industry? LOL!

That rambling sound more like an internet hoax email than science.

I'd really like to know more about cosmic rays making clouds. Sounds cool. 

A fellow made a bet about temperatures and that makes him a Yahoo. That is your opinion. Many of us made what can only be called bets on the financial markets and lost. Who are the Yahoos? You must have a better argument than just another typical insult and nothing else from the global warming crowd.

I posted the link because someone wanted examples of money being made off this global warming stuff. Proof provided by me of just a relatively small example. This fellow that you can only at best, accuse of rambling and being an internet hoax, has brought up some serious points.

I must say that I had never heard of this cosmic ray stuff before. As usual, the scientists disagree, but I see that some serious further study is being done as seen here so there must be at least some possibility worthy of further study....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/o...lingStars.shtml

For those of you following this debate but unsure what to believe(or who to vote for), ask yourself this...How credible is the side that uses terms like Yahoo, clueless, anti-science, anti-intellectual and accusations that we don't want Suzuki telling us what to do, to further(and in fact the main body of) their arguments?

Woxof...providing the examples instead of the insults.

[chockalicious]

It would appear that you overly sensitive to terms that are not neccessarily being directed at you (or maybe they are?) and feel the need to launch into a googlefest to find something, well anything to prove your point.

As I said in my first post on this thread, I was sure a host of links would be posted by all sides to try and prove their point.

I still believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe climate change,, global warming, whatever you want to call it is real. Why not be good stewards of the earth and try to do something about it?

The challenge for some seems to be that there is only black and white to any issue, no nuance, no room for shades of grey in their thought. This ties into perhaps pre-existing political beliefs where they align with those who only see the world one way.

Now if you will excuse me I have some cosmic rays to check out.

CHOCKALICIOUS...only spreading the unadultered truth and whoever disagrees is wrong

[boestar]

I believe in Climate Change... The Climate Changes...Always has always will.

[Maverick]

CHOCKALICIOUS...only spreading the unadultered truth and whoever disagrees is wrong

And that my friend is why the more serious messages get railroaded.

I realize that yours is tongue-in-cheek but that's the attitude that the good reverend Suzuki has taken and I, for one have stopped listening to ANYTHING he says. I (like most people I suppose) truly despise being talked down to. It doesn't change the problem or potential problem but it is entirely unhelpful in the big scheme of things.

[Guest woxof]

I still believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe climate change,, global warming, whatever you want to call it is real. 

You have said this several times. To quote professor Plimer....

"Science works on evidence, it doesn't work on consensus, that's what politics is about, and we have a really good example of that. Some years ago we all thought that we got stomach ulcers from an acid stomach, everyone thought that, everyone knew it. All the scientists said this was the case until these two West Australian scientists said: No, no, no, it's due to bacteria. And no one listened. And eventually they had to ingest bacteria, gave themselves ulcers, and showed that the whole scientific community was wrong. Now science has its fads, it has its fashions, it has its leaders, it has its dictators, it has its fraud and what we're dealing with human induced climate change is one group of scientists, and they are the atmospheric scientists, have taken the atmosphere completely out of the earth, ocean, ice, life, sun and heavens and just tortured that to death with their computer models and eventually the atmosphere has confessed. So that group of scientists have dominated the airwaves and the reason for that is that they're giving us a disastrous future and people are getting frightened: Oh, my God, we're all going to die. And that's dominated thinking."

global warming, whatever you want to call it is real. Why not be good stewards of the earth and try to do something about it?

Once again to quote.....

"I'm not sceptical about climate change at all. Climate's always changed. They always have, and they always will, and that's in many ways the purpose of the book that if you ignore history you come up with a conclusion which just doesn't fit in with the evidence, and that is that we're suddenly in a period where climates change. We're not. Climates always change, they change much quicker and much greater than anything we measure today."

Why don't we admit that this is just another natural cycle.

[Canus Chinookus]

I'd really like to know more about cosmic rays making clouds. Sounds cool. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5599/1732

[Mitch Cronin]

Why don't we admit that this is just another natural cycle.

Because that's not what many scientists are saying.

Yep, the number of those who disagree does appear to be rising (though even that is hard to know), but since most of us are not climatologists (including professor Plimer), it seems to this observer that listening for more learned opinions is worth doing.

And I absolutely agree with Chock that being "good stewards of the earth" is a worthwhile goal, regardless.

I regret my use of the term "clueless" earlier in this thread woxof, it clearly bothered you and for that, I apologize. It's interesting though, that even since then you've continued to post tidbits that make it appear, to me, that you may still not be aware of the difference between local weather and climate.

I think if you'd read a little from some better sources, you'd find that even those scientists who continue to endorse the global warming theory will tell you the temperature changes they anticipate would be on the global average... which doesn't mean that everywhere would experience warmer temps. What it would mean is greater changes in weather would be more common... more extremes... some areas could even experience lower temps.

That's how I understand it.

[Canus Chinookus]

I'd like to know why no one is talking about the ozone layer anymore?

[Mitch Cronin]

I'd like to know why no one is talking about the ozone layer anymore?

http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=73

Evidently it's still a concern, but I guess among those who study it, perhaps more alarming concerns have come to light.

[Canus Chinookus]

http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=73

Evidently it's still a concern, but I guess among those who study it, perhaps more alarming concerns have come to light.

"Each year since the late 1970s,..."

I love that line. The "LATE" 1970's is when they discovered it. They had no clue it even existed prior to that. For all they know, it has always existed.

[chockalicious]

Great post Mitch, shows why you're one of the class acts on this board.

[chockalicious]

And that my friend is why the more serious messages get railroaded.

I realize that yours is tongue-in-cheek but that's the attitude that the good reverend Suzuki has taken and I, for one have stopped listening to ANYTHING he says. I (like most people I suppose) truly despise being talked down to. It doesn't change the problem or potential problem but it is entirely unhelpful in the big scheme of things.

I agree Mav. As Marshall Macluhan (sp) said, "the medium is the messsage" so if a good message is getting lost because the messenger is alienating the audience then there is a problem.

You are right that most, if not all people do not like being talked down to and you almost have to wonder if someone who had the scientific bona fides and was free of political baggage could bring a rational case to the masses.

I think this is one of the reasons Al Gore is so widely dismissed. You can't seperate his political history from his message and it can drive people into different camps based on who is saying it rather than what is being said. It also does not help that a lot of what is in The Inconvenient Truth has been disproved.

Chockalicious...educating Mav since 2003

[Guest rattler]

When you guys go trolling for sympathetically spun links to paste, sometimes you trip yourselves, don't you?

What rattler linked the first time before he caught his little mistake

Cheers, IFG

I deleted it because of the 2006 date of the article. A lot has happened and we have learned a lot since then.

[deicer]

Another area to question is how is the economic turndown affecting global warming?

With fewer trucks, autos, trains and aircraft operating, is there a resultant drop in atmospheric CO2 that is making for a temporary cooling?

All I can say is that the bluest skies over Toronto I have ever seen were the three days after 9/11 when there was absolutely no air traffic.......

Iceman

[IFG]

I deleted it because of the 2006 date of the article.  A lot has happened and we have learned a lot since then.

The replacement story is hardly hot off the presses (April 6, 2008), but whatever you say - I guess the original link's content had nothing whatsoever to do with its removal ... and here I thought, when I read it, that some open-minded, bipartisan research was actually in evidence. Another illusion shattered

Cheers, IFG

p.s. What have you learned about the original story since 2006? I don't think much has changed ...

"On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. He has also been a frequent speaker with leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups"

"Some co-op members, taking the name IREA Voices, say Lewandowski has used his position to further an ideological, anti-green agenda" (April 15, 2009)

[Guest rattler]

What has changed is that more and more scientists are saying Global warming is not happening. Also of course some of the main drum beaters are loosing their credibility.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover022207.htm

We are however going though some climate change but as to the cause of that I think (as do a lot of scientists) it is more to do with the sun's relative inactivity rather than anything man made.

Again though I continue to think we should endorse efforts that will help clean up our planet but CO2 trading is not one that will.

Instead let's concentrate on recycling, more fuel efficient modes of transportation, power generation, consumer goods production etc. etc. etc.

[Guest woxof]

It would appear that you overly sensitive to terms that are not neccessarily being directed at you (or maybe they are?)

I regret my use of the term "clueless" earlier in this thread woxof, it clearly bothered you

Actually I am quite happy that you both have made your earlier statements and I hope for more. It fits in line with what Professor Plimer has said.....

"the public is not stupid, and they're getting treated as if they're stupid." and ".... We've had people talked down to by pompous, arrogant scientists"

Of course there is the best quote of all...."Most of my critics are playing the man, they've never, ever discussed science with me and as soon as someone plays the man you know you've won the game."

Woxof...staying indoors today on this statistically insignificant cool and rainy day.

P.S. for de-icer....I did notice that it was a beautiful, clear blue sunny day prior to the planes actually hitting the WTC. Somehow I doubt a lack of air traffic had anything to do with it.

[IFG]

What has changed is that more and more scientists are saying Global warming is not happening ....

Your bromides ducked my question, rattler, about a story, which you originally posted, that could diminish the credibility of some of those "scientists". Many of them likely deserve no more respect than that which you guys reserve for Gore/Suzuki et al.

Of course we should "concentrate on recycling, more fuel efficient modes of transportation" etc.etc.. If there was the slightest evidence that all (or even many) of those people who rail against any carbon mitigations at all, actually delivered something to some other pollution reduction, that line of argument might add a shred of credibility to opposing this one. Can you name a single anti-pollution program or initiative that draws widespread support on this forum?

Unfortunately, beneath all the crap about "reasoned discussion", I see a group of people who are predictably maintaining positions that seem to reassure their current circumstances and reinforce their already-held convictions. Nobody is eager to make changes, let alone sacrificial ones (however wildly overstated those might be). In this particular case, I suspect that if global warming - or climate change - is not occurring - or is, but not man-made (still wondering what it all is that the other side is supposed to argue against ) - most of the opposition expressed here will be coincidentally validated, rather reflective of any superior reasoning.

Not that "reasoned discussion" cannot take place here, but step one will be to confine our arguments and citations to stuff we actually comprehend, and that is actually congruent with the points we're trying to make. Step two (maybe this should be # one) would be to recognize that the other side's failure to agree is neither an intellectual defect nor a character flaw. This applies to both sides, of course, but I suggest more particularly to you and some of your allies who, after all, are clearly in the majority here in spite of all the persecution rhetoric.

Cheers, IFG

[Guest rattler]

IFG: support on this forum means squat when it comes to efforts to improve our planet. What counts is what we as individuals do to improve things. The fact that I don't believe in Carbon credits or Global Warming has nothing to do with how I conduct my personal efforts to clean up the planet.

As to your point

Unfortunately, beneath all the crap about "reasoned discussion", I see a group of people who are predictably maintaining positions that seem to reassure their current circumstances and reinforce their already-held convictions. Nobody is eager to make changes, let alone sacrificial ones (however wildly overstated those might be). In this particular case, I suspect that if global warming - or climate change - is not occurring - or is, but not man-made (still wondering what it all is that the other side is supposed to argue against ) - it will be pure coincidence rather than any superior reasoning.

I suggest you read your first and 2nd line and apply it to those who believe in "global warming".

[Moon The Loon]

Ozone layer? I read about that controversy in my history books! Yesterday's fad is soon forgotten. In the meantime, airconditioner manufacturers and auto makers have made billions. The real horror awaiting mankind is here:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/

BTW,

[IFG]

rattler - since I wrote line 1 & 2 I don't need to re-read them , and yes they apply to both sides as I said ("This applies to both sides, of course"), altho' it was, perhaps unclearly, in a following paragraph. It's not a case of black hats and white hats here, but the anti- side's views simply are more reflective of preservation of the status quo than the pro-side. That's simply reality. But if it comforts you, re: your admonishment - duly noted.

I may also have been unclear in that I was not singling out any one individual's anti-pollution efforts, or lack thereof (again, "all (or even many)"). This is a widely used evasion, and the virtues of a few do not dignify the many. Personal kudos to you, tho'

As for this forum, I guess you seek to invalidate any purpose at all to discussions here. They are an eminently discardable activity, and if you really reduce it to indiscriminate and useless clamour, so it will be. There are many other venues

Cheers, IFG

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead

[Guest rattler]

IFG my comment regarding the forum was only meant in the context that any / all discussion on this forum has absolutely no effect negative or positive on the question of Global Warming in the global sense. Other discussions that help clarify an opinion or an event or result in changed behaviour (voting, personal behaviour etc) are always of benefit.

[IFG]

I disagree. Silence in the marketplace of ideas is no better than the failure to vote in a democracy, for what will generate the choices and options?

One of the things most likely to "help clarify an opinion or an event or result in changed behaviour" (albeit rarely and only incrementally ), particularly on political issues like those affecting the climate, is interaction with our peers, this kind included. It's a tough slog tho' (particularly in the face of condescension and patronization); complacency is very appealing to most of us

Cheers. IFG

[Guest rattler]

I disagree. Silence in the marketplace of ideas is no better than the failure to vote in a democracy, for what will generate the choices and options?

One of the things most likely to "help clarify an opinion or an event or result in changed behaviour" (albeit rarely and only incrementally ), particularly on political issues like those affecting the climate, is interaction with our peers, this kind included. It's a tough slog tho' (particularly in the face of condescension and patronization); complacency is very appealing to most of us

Cheers. IFG

IFG, if you were talking about a world wide read forum , you might indeed be right. However, our forum is of limited readership (seen by most as a AC and WJA forum and thus has little impact on world opinion. Now if only we had the reach of Pprune for example....