Politics of Global Warming

[exlude]

A memo later released by the committee says that the documents provided by the Council on Environmental Qualify (CEQ) suggest the White House was systematically trying to minimise the significance of climate change.

It says there is evidence that Phillip Cooney, former chief of staff of the CEQ, and his staff made almost 300 edits to a 10 year strategy document either to emphasise scientific uncertainty (181), or to diminish the human role in global warming (113).

It also cites evidence that the White House "played an active role in deciding when federal climate change scientists could answer media questions about their work".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/20/climate_change_meddling/

A former White House (Cooney) official accused of improperly editing reports on global warming defended his editing changes Monday, saying they reflected views in a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17704056/

James Hansen, the Nasa scientist who first warned the US government about global warming, yesterday delivered a withering critique of the way the White House has "interfered" with climate scientists at the space agency.

Dr Hansen, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, said that the space agency's budget for studying the Earth's climate has been slashed and that its scientists have been systematically gagged about speaking of their concerns.

In detailed written testimony delivered yesterday to the US House of Representatives, Dr Hansen said that there had been creeping politicisation of climate change with the effect that the American public has been left confused about the science of global warming.

"During my career I have noticed an increasing politicisation of public affairs at headquarters level, with a notable effect on communication from scientists to the public," Dr Hansen writes in his testimony. "Interference with communication of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career," he says. "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2374354.ece

Of course, you have to keep in mind the motives of whoever may be writting these, especially the first article. Nevertheless, good reminder to look into your science. Lot of bullshit from either side, especially they "specialists" you think know more than you do. And, as I always say, I hate popular science.

[Casper]

I like how Hansen claims that the government that he worked for tried to silence him, even though he was able to do 1400 on the job interviews. Censorship, yeah, right.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070320-120435-3136r.htm

He's a lying quack who knew that NASA was going to lose most of its funding so he made up some shit for congress.

I'm hoping he fucks with some Irving police officers soon. Or some pit bulls or something.

[Stevo]

The only people that are still proponents of global warming research are those that stand to politically gain from it (leftist liberals) and those that stand to financially gain from it (research grants). Global warming is known to be a farce, the research quality runs the gamut from selective inclusion of facts, to downright misrepresentation.

I believe it was you who commented about "not helping it along", I have yet to see conclusive facts that we (humans) are effecting it at all. Anyone can take one fact out of context, and try to use it to prove most anything, that is exactly what they are doing.

Stevo

[exlude]

The only people that are still proponents of global warming research are those that stand to politically gain from it (leftist liberals) and those that stand to financially gain from it (research grants). Global warming is known to be a farce, the research quality runs the gamut from selective inclusion of facts, to downright misrepresentation.

One, don't confuse Global Warming with Anthropo-Global Warming. I'm guessing your sources are limited on this. There is actually a ton of good research on both, leading to different conclusions. Global warming is not known to be a farce, however.

I believe it was you who commented about "not helping it along", I have yet to see conclusive facts that we (humans) are effecting it at all. Anyone can take one fact out of context, and try to use it to prove most anything, that is exactly what they are doing.

Stevo

Here is where I stand. There is evidence from good research that greenhouse gases can affect surface temps in a way that is adverse to life. Note, evidence, not proof (which is what I guess you mean by "conclusive facts"). There is also much better evidence that this is part of the cyclical nature of the Earth. But, note that these two are not mutually exclusive. You aren't going to get conclusive facts, especially not so early, not with a problem of this nature, and with so many politics. I say, I see no reason to accelerate it.

[AL P]

Here is where I stand. There is evidence from good research that greenhouse gases can affect surface temps in a way that is adverse to life. Note, evidence, not proof (which is what I guess you mean by "conclusive facts"). There is also much better evidence that this is part of the cyclical nature of the Earth. But, note that these two are not mutually exclusive. You aren't going to get conclusive facts, especially not so early, not with a problem of this nature, and with so many politics. I say, I see no reason to accelerate it.

I agree with this but would add that I am not in favor of significantly hurting our country economically in order to guard against it.

In my opinion the whole thing is going to be a joke in the next decade.

[Denny]

Shit... the earth has its period and the lefties cry "The sky is falling!!!" :rolleyes:

[Casper]

Its going to hurt really bad if we cause an ice age though. Especially in Canada and Europe. I say, give them what they want! Climate wars! We have the technology in Area 51, we should freeze those bastards out for money, ONE MIIIILLLLION DOLLARS!!!! [/DrEvil]

[exlude]

I agree with this but would add that I am not in favor of significantly hurting our country economically in order to guard against it.

In my opinion the whole thing is going to be a joke in the next decade.

Absolutely, I think mandates that would cripple our economy are retarded on 12.2 different levels. But I see no reason to curb funding for research on it or even more importantly, better/other technologies. Hell, innovation is what the US is (supposed to be) all about.

It very well may be a joke, hopefully we get some cool technology out of it nonetheless :p

[exlude]

Its going to hurt really bad if we cause an ice age though. Especially in Canada and Europe. I say, give them what they want! Climate wars! We have the technology in Area 51, we should freeze those bastards out for money, ONE MIIIILLLLION DOLLARS!!!! [/DrEvil]

Wasn't there a Command and Conquer game based on that notion?

[32VfromHell]

battlfield 2142 is based on an ice age.

[Stevo]

One, don't confuse Global Warming with Anthropo-Global Warming. I'm guessing your sources are limited on this. There is actually a ton of good research on both, leading to different conclusions. Global warming is not known to be a farce, however.

I beg to differ, there still hasn't been any conclusive evidence that mankind has changed our climate, any open minded scientist can look at available data and see it fluctuates and see what readily causes it to fluctuate. And by available data, I mean ALL the data, not just a piece here and there. You need to actually read a bit more, what mankind is doing to the environment is just a minuscule drop in the bucket, versus the wide picture.

Impartial scientists have actually studied the so called 'Global Warming Theory' and proven it to be a farce, it is politically and financially motivated, end of story.

Stevo

[exlude]

I beg to differ, there still hasn't been any conclusive evidence that mankind has changed our climate, any open minded scientist can look at available data and see it fluctuates and see what readily causes it to fluctuate. And by available data, I mean ALL the data, not just a piece here and there. You need to actually read a bit more, what mankind is doing to the environment is just a minuscule drop in the bucket, versus the wide picture.

Impartial scientists have actually studied the so called 'Global Warming Theory' and proven it to be a farce, it is politically and financially motivated, end of story.

Stevo

Lol, anyone who has "proven global warming to be a farce" is feeding you quite a line. There has been some good contradictory evidence, but hardly definitive proof one way or the other. I have seen a few people try to claim it that way, but there are always valid counterpoints to their logic too.

[Vertnut]

How about Al Gore and his Zinc producing strip mine! What a fucking hypocrit. Spewing that horrible poison into the atmosphere to line his fucking pockets, then writing books on global warming, pointing fingers at you and I for burning gasoline...What a shitbag. :cool:

[Paladin]

Absolutely, I think mandates that would cripple our economy are retarded on 12.2 different levels. But I see no reason to curb funding for research on it or even more importantly, better/other technologies. Hell, innovation is what the US is (supposed to be) all about.

It very well may be a joke, hopefully we get some cool technology out of it nonetheless :p

I think the environmental wackos have shot themselves and their credibility in the foot by saying this is completely a man made problem and not acknowledging that we have had warm ups and freezes on this planet with no impact from man.

I am no left wing wacko, but I will try and do my part to minimize the impact man has on gloabl warming, but I don't want Al Gore telling me to stopp using my car while he flies in private planes and has a 60K a month electric bill.

[svodave]

Just one of Al Gores trans continental flights uses more fuel than my car will all year. Then there's his huge Tennesee estate which rings up an astonishing $2,500 gas/elec bill each MONTH! What a world class hypocritical douche.

[exlude]

I think the environmental wackos have shot themselves and their credibility in the foot by saying this is completely a man made problem and not acknowledging that we have had warm ups and freezes on this planet with no impact from man.

I am no left wing wacko, but I will try and do my part to minimize the impact man has on gloabl warming, but I don't want Al Gore telling me to stopp using my car while he flies in private planes and has a 60K a month electric bill.

I will agree with you there. The polar arguments are retarded. Some people would have you believe that the Earth is a steadystate place and then omg, humans burn it all up. That kind of shit simply stimulates the response, "those guys are crazy, and since I'm not crazy. I'm not going to believe in anything that those crazies believe." While they are crazy, they aren't necessarily entirely wrong. Somewhere in there can be bits of truth, just with following gross exagerations.

I have a theory that there is something in the water in the performance industry, be it movies/music/TV. Seems every single famous person is absolutely crazy. Might stand true for politics as well, takes a certain type of person I guess. While some are better than others, Al Gore is far gone.

[Casper]

Wasn't there a Command and Conquer game based on that notion?

Maybe, never heard about it though.

[Stevo]

Lol, anyone who has "proven global warming to be a farce" is feeding you quite a line. There has been some good contradictory evidence, but hardly definitive proof one way or the other. I have seen a few people try to claim it that way, but there are always valid counterpoints to their logic too.

Nobody has fed me anything, thank you, the 'Global Warming Theory' has proven to be bullshit. If you don't believe the truth, your problem. Co2 has jack to do with global warming, the theory has been disproved, and the fact that you continue to deny it is killing your credibility. But believe whatever you want, I have learned that trying to argue with liberals is like trying to piss up a rope. In the face of evidence, they all turn a blind eye if it doesn't support their agenda.

Stevo

[exlude]

Nobody has fed me anything, thank you, the 'Global Warming Theory' has proven to be bullshit. If you don't believe the truth, your problem. Co2 has jack to do with global warming, the theory has been disproved, and the fact that you continue to deny it is killing your credibility. But believe whatever you want, I have learned that trying to argue with liberals is like trying to piss up a rope. In the face of evidence, they all turn a blind eye if it doesn't support their agenda.

Stevo

Nothing has been proven definitively, unless a new study came out today that I have missed. I would like to see your proof though, what journal is it in? I can access most of them while I'm still here on campus. Likely I said, there is a shit ton of contradicting evidence...almost in a circular manner. But nothing has been proven one way or the other.

I think the fact that you just centered your argument around CO2 shows fairly well that you aren't looking at the entire picture. Not only is your statement unfounded, it's fairly narrow.

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.
And that guy was commenting on evidence contrary to global warming. Take for example how regions of east Antarctica are getting colder in recent times. It does make no sense if you are trying to argue that CO2 is causing the warming of the entire Earth or the melting of the ice caps. But, in science, this is not proof against CO2. Evidence against it? Maybe. But the world is not so simple. Things cannot be defined down to single variables that explain it all in a Google blurb.

[99SVTour]

Here is where I stand. There is evidence from good research that greenhouse gases can affect surface temps in a way that is adverse to life. Note, evidence, not proof (which is what I guess you mean by "conclusive facts"). There is also much better evidence that this is part of the cyclical nature of the Earth. But, note that these two are not mutually exclusive. You aren't going to get conclusive facts, especially not so early, not with a problem of this nature, and with so many politics. I say, I see no reason to accelerate it.

That is pretty much where I stand as well. It's obviously a natural cycle that our planet has been through several times before and we are probably accelerating it to a point, but the idea that we are totally responsible for it and can stop it is ridiculous.
I honestly believe that the human population being so large is as much a contributor to the problem as using gas is due to nature's ability to combat "greenhouse gases" being lessened by the overuse of natural resources and constant destruction of natural lands to lay down more concrete.

[Stevo]

I think the fact that you just centered your argument around CO2 shows fairly well that you aren't looking at the entire picture. Not only is your statement unfounded, it's fairly narrow.



CO2 is the backbone of the 'Global Warming Theory'. My statements are not narrow, it is the proponents of the 'Global Warming Theory' in their reasoning for global warming. The reason I am mentioning the CO2 factor, is because it is the reason given by that theory, that the climate is warming.

I do not have time to show all the collected info on the disapproval of the GWT,as it is a multitude of information, not just one small fact or theory, but if you have a little over an hour, this video will explain a lot:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

And yes, I am sure you have been waiting for me to mention the video, so that it can be discredited.

Stevo

[exlude]

CO2 is the backbone of the 'Global Warming Theory'. My statements are not narrow, it is the proponents of the 'Global Warming Theory' in their reasoning for global warming. The reason I am mentioning the CO2 factor, is because it is the reason given by that theory, that the climate is warming.

And this is why I hate popular science. You're right in that it is the backbone to any theories you will read about in the paper. But that too is a very limited view on some fairly extensive research.

I do not have time to show all the collected info on the disapproval of the GWT,as it is a multitude of information, not just one small fact or theory, but if you have a little over an hour, this video will explain a lot:

I have seen this video before and it's actually pretty decent. God knows it's 10x better than an Inconvenient Truth. But the misconception you have with it, and the video presents it this way as well at times, is it's all final, indisputable proof when in reality it's a good amount of facts, in a certain context, and then conclusions to draw together the holes. The only fact about all of this is that we don't havn't studied it enough to know how it all works together. We have some good bits and pieces, some of which are highly contradictory, but not the whole picture.


And yes, I am sure you have been waiting for me to mention the video, so that it can be discredited.

Stevo
Good call, except I'm not going to discredit the entire movie. Some good science in there for sure. I was expecting you to post it as your evidence, however.

[Mustangman_2000]

Wow....This is going to easy.

This is not even a debatable issue if you are a Democrat, Republican, or even a GOP hardliner. Global warming is real and is caused mostly by human activity. See, even President Bush agrees with me. ;)

President Bush:

“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming…There is a natural
greenhouse effect that contributes to warming…And the National Academy of Sciences
indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.” – June 11, 2001

AND

“My Administration is committed to cutting our Nation's greenhouse gas intensity…by
18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of
our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth
of emissions.” – February 14, 2002

AND

“America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our
lives less dependent on oil….they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global
climate change.” – January 23, 2007

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070207-5.html

Case closed. Have a nice day! :)

[AL P]

Wow....This is going to easy.

This is not even a debatable issue if you are a Democrat, Republican, or even a GOP hardliner. There is nothing to debate. Global warming is real and is caused mostly by human activity. See, even President Bush agrees with me. ;)

President Bush:

“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming…There is a natural
greenhouse effect that contributes to warming…And the National Academy of Sciences
indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.” – June 11, 2001

AND

“My Administration is committed to cutting our Nation's greenhouse gas intensity…by
18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of
our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth
of emissions.” – February 14, 2002

AND

“America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our
lives less dependent on oil….they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global
climate change.” – January 23, 2007

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070207-5.html

Case closed. Have a nice day! :)

That's right, some politicians said it's true so it has to be true.

[Walsted]

I try to keep a few things in perspective -

Weather tracking hasn't been around that long. Most weather stations are at airports, which weren't around until the invention of the airplane. Most airports are in cities, and cities generate more heat as they grow, due to the increase in cars, factories, and other heat producers. So, most of the recorded temperatures are in areas where a slight temperature increase would be expected. Few official weather stations are in unpopulated or sparsely populated areas.

Temperatures over ocean areas could only be collected by ships until weather satellites came into use. Ships followed certain routes, so incredibly large areas of the ocean were left without coverage until satellites came into being. Weather satellites have been around for decades, and can record ocean temperatures worldwide, so we can assume that we have a few decades worth of ocean temperatures. Since the Earth is mostly ocean, that means that we have at most a few decades worth of complete temperature data.

Different methods of collecting the temperature have been used, with different recording standards. At one point, US stations reported in whole degrees F each hour, with foreign stations reporting in whole degrees C. Every three hours, everyone would report in tenths of a degree C. Depending upon when and where it was taken, the temperature could have been measured with a mercury thermometer or some type of electronic device. Accuracy standards varied, but could easily be a significant fraction of a degree F.

Considering the data limitations and measurement errors that could occur due to the above, I don't see how someone could say for certain that global warming is occurring at a specific rate, yet I have seen it reported as fact in the press, and seen the said rate attributed to specific causes. Since increased heating causes increased moisture evaporation which causes increased cloud coverage which increases the amount of radiation reflected back out into space which results in cooling, I don't see how someone could state that increased heating would continue at a specific rate unabated instead of reaching equilibrium, yet I have seen it reported as fact in the press, and seen it attributed to specific causes. Consequently, I tend to ignore the press's take on climate.

A comic from someone who believes in man-made global warming: http://xkcd.com/c164.html

[Mustangman_2000]

That's right, some politicians said it's true so it has to be true.

that's right AL P

president bush says global warming is real and caused mostly by human activity, so it's gotta be true in my book.

the same president bush that says that sadam hussein didn't have WMDs in iraq, only a capacity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUKuumhrSk8

president bush does not lie or mislead the public regarding important political issues. remember?

and since it has been established on dfwstangs.net that president bush does not lie. i fully support president bush in him acknowledging the serious of global warming and stating that it IS caused mostly by human activity or interference.

i stand by the president on this issue. and that means that everyone of you that deny the existence of global warming by a human catalyst are wrong.

and the only way for you to be right in this argument is you would have to impugn what president bush has stated for the record. in doing so, you would question his credibility and veracity.

[Stevo]

.....blah blah towing my partyline blah....

Sorry, this is a discussion for grown-ups, please go back to the kiddie table with your propaganda.

Stevo

[Stevo]

Would you like to be referred to as the 'Anti-Bush', or maybe 'Bizarro Bush'?

Just shut the fuck up with the Bush-bashing for a bit, and please stop trying to drag your idiotic bullshit to other discussions, people are really sick of it.

Stevo

[46Tbird]

president bush says global warming is real and caused mostly by human activity, so it's gotta be true in my book.I thought you said everything Bush says is complete and utter horseshit, so now you agree with him.

A "Tim Mustangman_2000" flip flop in the making?

As for global warming, there is a lot of evidence on either side, but I tend to err toward the side that isn't overreacting (IMO). If these gases are actually insulators, and are serving to keep energy locked IN to the planet, then they are also serving to keep energy OUT. Scientifically, that's the way insulators work. As for ozone depletion, I buy that. I'd like to see more work on recreating ozone, or a CFC removal plan.

Also, if this is such a big deal, why was Kyoto supposed to put the bulk of pressure on a country that has already funded solutions that other countries wouldn't even have to implement? That was just a "let's fuckover America" deal from the get go.

[TexasDevilDog]

Sure the Earth is warming up. The Earth has been colder and warmer in the past. The current temperture is not even close to being outside the Gaussian distribution.

Which is better a wamer Earth or a colder Earth?

During the period with the dinosaurs the Earth was much warmer than now. Life on the Earth thrived and it supported huge biomass dinosaurs.

Nearly 1000 years ago, the Little Ice Age started, caused failed crops and famine for centuries. All the Viking settlements were wiped out in North America.

[Casper]

more like 700 years, but the point about it having been both warmer and cooler in the very recent past is what is important. We are currently in a global fluctuation halfway between what Lewis and Clark saw a couple hundred years ago (the Dalton minimum) and what Harold II saw at the battle of Hastings (the Medieval Maximum). That is a very short time period and yet we are now in some kind of unprecedented crisis?

Its just a ploy to tax the air we breathe. Literally.

[TexasDevilDog]

more like 700 years, but the point about it having been both warmer and cooler in the very recent past is what is important. We are currently in a global fluctuation halfway between what Lewis and Clark saw a couple hundred years ago (the Dalton minimum) and what Harold II saw at the battle of Hastings (the Medieval Maximum). That is a very short time period and yet we are now in some kind of unprecedented crisis?

Its just a ploy to tax the air we breathe. Literally.

Thanks for the correct years. Mach1Marauder wasn't around to ask when it happened. :D

The ploy to add a tax is correct, and it is a means to distribute money from richer countries to poorer countries through carbon trading. If global warming people were serious about reducing CO2 emissions they would tell OPEC to cut oil production by 30% back to 1990 levels.

[Vertnut]

Thanks for the correct years. Mach1Marauder wasn't around to ask when it happened. :D

The ploy to add a tax is correct, and it is a means to distribute money from richer countries to poorer countries through carbon trading. If global warming people were serious about reducing CO2 emissions they would tell OPEC to cut oil production by 30% back to 1990 levels.
...and gas would be $5.00 a gallon.

[Mustangman_2000]

Sorry, this is a discussion for grown-ups, please go back to the kiddie table with your propaganda.

Stevo

propaganda? just posting quotes from whitehouse.gov and video segments per usual. :)

only someone who is not playing with a full deck would call quotes from whitehouse.gov under the bush administration left wing propaganda. i would recommend that you see a mental health professional if you believed that to be true.

on the matter of global warming - i am just saying that i agree with president bush on this issue that global warming is an issue caused in large part by human activity. i think the science is compelling and does indicate a climate change caused by influences of man and industry.

President Bush:

“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming…There is a natural
greenhouse effect that contributes to warming…And the National Academy of Sciences
indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.” – June 11, 2001

“My Administration is committed to cutting our Nation's greenhouse gas intensity…by
18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of
our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth
of emissions.” – February 14, 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070207-5.html

[Mustangman_2000]

I thought you said everything Bush says is complete and utter horseshit, so now you agree with him.

A "Tim Mustangman_2000" flip flop in the making?



i was being facetious.

[Stevo]

only someone who is not playing with a full deck would call quotes from whitehouse.gov under the bush administration left wing propaganda.

Only a liberal leftist would NOT call spinning statements given from whitehouse.gov propaganda.

Again, this is a big boy topic, now shush and go watch cartoons or play video games while the adults talk.

Stevo

[exlude]

This thread sucks.

[Paladin]

That's right, some politicians said it's true so it has to be true.

How convenient that he chooses to believe Bush when he agrees with him and calls him a liar when he doesn't! :rolleyes:

[Paladin]

This thread sucks now that idiot mustangman joined in with his Bush bashing.

Fixed :D

[Mustangman_2000]

Only a liberal leftist would NOT call spinning statements given from whitehouse.gov propaganda.



lol....ok

let me get this straight. you are saying that president bush's statements acknowledging the problems of global warming and attributing them to human activity is propaganda?

be careful with this one, stevo. this could be a slippery slope for you....propaganda is usually ascribed as being untruthful.

are you saying the president bush is being untruthful about global warming?

[Mustangman_2000]

How convenient that he chooses to believe Bush when he agrees with him and calls him a liar when he doesn't! :rolleyes:

i agree with him on this issue. plain and simple.

i agree with him for a couple of reasons. one being the enormity of the science behind global warming caused by human influence. and secondly, it's just entertaining to see some of the ardent bush supporters that deny global warming be contradicted by president bush himself.

[Stevo]

lol....ok

let me get this straight. you are saying that president bush's statements acknowledging the problems of global warming and attributing them to human activity is propaganda?

be careful with this one, stevo. this could be a slippery slope for you....propaganda is usually ascribed as being untruthful.

are you saying the president bush is being untruthful about global warming?

Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid

I'm saying you are spinning statements and comments to bash the president, instead of actually discussing the topic at hand. Your choice to become the Anti-Bush in this thread has made it now useless.

To be truthful, I care not what the White House states about global warming, or your spin on it. As stated before, I look at the facts, read between the lines, and make logical opinions/theories, which are my own, not regurgitated straight line party scriptures. Now, be a good boy, start a thread saying GeeDub lied about global warming, so us big kids can have a reasonable discussion here.

Stevo

[Mustangman_2000]

I'm saying you are spinning statements and comments to bash the president, instead of actually discussing the topic at hand.

i'm not bashing him at all. i am agreeing with his statements. we have all see the research, reports, and studies since this became a mainstream topic. a lot of credible people in the scientific community have endorsed the industry cause and effect on global warming.

To be truthful, I care not what the White House states about global warming, or your spin on it. As stated before, I look at the facts, read between the lines, and make logical opinions/theories, which are my own, not regurgitated straight line party scriptures.

congratulations on having the insight to read between the lines. be careful though...if you read too much between the lines it can morph into drawing conclusions based on sheer speculation.

and why wouldn't you care about what the white house states about global warming? you bought everything else that came from this whitehouse. why is this topic different?

Now, be a good boy, start a thread saying GeeDub lied about global warming, so us big kids can have a reasonable discussion here.


no thanks. i'm good.

i agree with president bush on this issue. environmental awareness and education is one of the staples of the democratic party, so you can see why i'm in agreement with the president on this topic.

[AL P]

i agree with him for a couple of reasons. one being the enormity of the science behind global warming caused by human influence.

That's right, a thousand scientists looking for federal funds and hollywood play money can't be wrong.

People never lie for money.

[SS Junk]

The same people who buy into this gobildygook bullshit are the same ones who believe 09/11/01 was a conspiracy... Now that's credibility.

[46Tbird]

i'm not bashing him at all. i am agreeing with his statements. we have all see the research, reports, and studies since this became a mainstream topic. a lot of credible people in the scientific community have endorsed the industry cause and effect on global warming.Yeah, a lot of the same people that warned us about Global Cooling. :rolleyes:

LOL that you STILL have this mindset where everyone blindly follows GWB / Republican Party dogma. We're not blind, we're not following anybody, it's YOU that flagrantly supports a party and its leaders.

Tim, I'll give you a tip, most of the people posting here are hardworking, gun-toting, tax paying, fiscally and socially conservative people with tendencies to be religious. That's what you're "up against." Not Republicans necessarily.

[GhostTX]

I have a theory that there is something in the water in the performance industry, be it movies/music/TV. Seems every single famous person is absolutely crazy. Might stand true for politics as well, takes a certain type of person I guess. While some are better than others, Al Gore is far gone.
Its not water...its money. They're rich and famous and for some reason that makes them think they know more and what's best for everybody.

[exlude]

Fixed :D

Pretty much, I don't want to post in my own thread anymore. I get tired/bored of his shit.

[Paladin]

i agree with him on this issue. plain and simple.

i agree with him for a couple of reasons. one being the enormity of the science behind global warming caused by human influence. and secondly, it's just entertaining to see some of the ardent bush supporters that deny global warming be contradicted by president bush himself.

I agree that human influence has probably made global warming accelerate some. I bet it is less than 5% of the total cause.

Do you think that the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods that had nothing to do with human influence?

What percentage do you think human influence has had on the current warming trend?

[TexasDevilDog]

'Communism has been replaced by the threat of an ambitious environmentalism,' Klaus wrote in response to questions from the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070321-0538-czech-environment-.html

[exlude]

I agree that human influence has probably made global warming accelerate some. I bet it is less than 5% of the total cause.

Do you think that the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods that had nothing to do with human influence?

What percentage do you think human influence has had on the current warming trend?

There are some interesting studies about the strength of the sun and it's ability to deflect cosmic rays. These cosmic rays have been shown to be able to actually form clouds. Theory is that the sun is stronger now than it was several hundred years ago and deflect more of these rays, thus forming less clouds, thus raising Earth temps. Pretty cool stuff, imo. Something I wouldn't have figured in a million years.

[Paladin]

There are some interesting studies about the strength of the sun and it's ability to deflect cosmic rays. These cosmic rays have been shown to be able to actually form clouds. Theory is that the sun is stronger now than it was several hundred years ago and deflect more of these rays, thus forming less clouds, thus raising Earth temps. Pretty cool stuff, imo. Something I wouldn't have figured in a million years.

Very interesting. I wonder how mustangman will try and spin this info.

[AL P]

Very interesting. I wonder how mustangman will try and spin this info.

By ignoring it and posting some more links to bullshit.

[exlude]

By ignoring it and posting some more links to bullshit.

I'll give you one guess what website he will quote.

[Mustangman_2000]

I agree that human influence has probably made global warming accelerate some. I bet it is less than 5% of the total cause.

Do you think that the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods that had nothing to do with human influence?

What percentage do you think human influence has had on the current warming trend?

i would define my position as being in the middle. i don't think that drastic and hasty actions are required, but i also think it would be foolish to ignore global warming and it's effects on climate.

i think the first step is acknowledging the effects of industry, automobiles, cows(j/k),etc.. have on increasing green house gases. then make an solid effort to reduce emissions in a practical way that doesn't overtly change our way of life or hinder the economy. i think a happy medium could be a reality if this issue wasn't so polarized.

i think there is credible evidence that shows arctic and anarctic are receding and most glaziers around the world are shrinking, which in turn will raise sea levels.

i think human influence has a measured effect on current global warming trends. what is debatable is how much?

i'm not an ecologist or environmental expert, so there is only so much myself or anyone will be able to contribute without formal education on the subject.

[exlude]

i would define my position as being in the middle. i don't think that drastic and hasty actions are required, but i also think it would be foolish to ignore global warming and it's effects on climate.

i think the first step is acknowledging the effects of industry, automobiles, cows(j/k),etc.. have on increasing green house gases. then make an solid effort to reduce emissions in a practical way that doesn't overtly change our way of life or hinder the economy. i think a happy medium could be a reality if this issue wasn't so polarized.

i think there is credible evidence that shows arctic and anarctic are receding and most glaziers around the world are shrinking, which in turn will raise sea levels.

i'm not an ecologist or environmental expert, so there is only so much myself or anyone will be able to contribute without formal education on the subject.


Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses, according to a paper published today in the online version of Nature.

Researchers with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Longterm Ecological Research (LTER) site in Antarctica's Dry Valleys - a perpetually snow-free, mountainous area adjacent to McMurdo Sound - argue in the paper that long-term data from weather stations across the continent, coupled with a separate set of measurements from the Dry Valleys, confirm each other and corroborate the continental cooling trend.

"Our 14-year continuous weather station record from the shore of Lake Hoare reveals that seasonally averaged surface air temperature has decreased by 0.7 degrees Celsius per decade," they write. "The temperature decrease is most pronounced in summer and autumn. Continental cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change."

The findings are puzzling because many climate models indicate that the Polar regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures. An ice sheet many kilometers thick in places perpetually covers almost all of Antarctica.


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521data_trunc_sys.shtml

Not to say that greenhouse gases don't affect global temperature. But the arctic, antarctic stuff is a load of BS.

I'm a Bio major, FWIW. While my study focuses on pathogens and cultural problems, I have had my fair share of climate schooling in respect to it's affects on life.

I also believe Casper majored in a Geo science.

[Mustangman_2000]

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521data_trunc_sys.shtml

Not to say that greenhouse gases don't affect global temperature. But the arctic, antarctic stuff is a load of BS.

I'm a Bio major, FWIW. While my study focuses on pathogens and cultural problems, I have had my fair share of climate schooling in respect to it's affects on life.

I also believe Casper majored in a Geo science.

then you guys are going have an advantage over me in this subject.

my degree is in emergency medical management, so i'm on a learning curve in regards to environmental science.

however, i will have to say that i have read a myriad of studies that do overtly indicate the arctic and anarctic are shrinking. i guess that's why this really is a ongoing political debate.
http://www.ecology.com/ecology-today/earth-warms/index.html

[Stevo]

i would define my position as being in the middle. i don't think that drastic and hasty actions are required, but i also think it would be foolish to ignore global warming and it's effects on climate.

i think the first step is acknowledging the effects of industry, automobiles, cows(j/k),etc.. have on increasing green house gases. then make an solid effort to reduce emissions in a practical way that doesn't overtly change our way of life or hinder the economy. i think a happy medium could be a reality if this issue wasn't so polarized.

i think there is credible evidence that shows arctic and anarctic are receding and most glaziers around the world are shrinking, which in turn will raise sea levels.

i think human influence has a measured effect on current global warming trends. what is debatable is how much?

i'm not an ecologist or environmental expert, so there is only so much myself or anyone will be able to contribute without formal education on the subject.

Typical. You want it to be announced that there is a problem, then legislation made to reduce this so called 'problem'.

Congrats, you are a bona fide backed of the "Global Warming Theory". Even though it has been shown that the so called green house gases do not effect the environment as shown in the "Global Warming Theory" you will continue to push it. Just like you will vote straight ticket even if your candidate is hell bent on destroying America. You have let politics decide your stand on the so called 'global warming' problem.

Enough of this, my bellhousing was finally delivered, I'm going out to assemble my car.

Stevo

[exlude]

then you guys are going have an advantage over me in this subject.

my degree is in emergency medical management, so i'm on a learning curve in regards to environmental science.

however, i will have to say that i have read a myriad of studies that do overtly indicate the arctic and anarctic are shrinking. i guess that's why this really is a ongoing political debate.
http://www.ecology.com/ecology-today/earth-warms/index.html

In context of the antarctic link I posted earlier, the data is flawed. People are saying the icecap is shrinking when in fact it's merely changing. All the measurements for "shrinkage" and many for temperature change were taken on a peninsula that juts out towards S. America. And while this is getting warmer and eroding, the more central mass of Antarctica is growing colder and expanding, not in width but in depth.

[Mustangman_2000]

. Just like you will vote straight ticket even if your candidate is hell bent on destroying America. You have let politics decide your stand on the so called 'global warming' problem.


incorrect, per usual.

i have already stated (many times) i will not be voting straight ticket in the '08 elections because of my ambivalence towards the leading candidates.

quit trying to pigeon hole me on the liberal moniker. it's just something you say because you're angry that my responses don't mirror your own. it's not actually an accurate representation of my position.

let it go bro.

i've been trying my last couple of post to stay directly on topic in this thread. why don't you give it a try.

[Mustangman_2000]

In context of the antarctic link I posted earlier, the data is flawed. People are saying the icecap is shrinking when in fact it's merely changing. All the measurements for "shrinkage" and many for temperature change were taken on a peninsula that juts out towards S. America. And while this is getting warmer and eroding, the more central mass of Antarctica is growing colder and expanding, not in width but in depth.

interesting.

then i guess the only way to truthfully determine whether or not they are shrinking would be to measure for changes in sea level.

but, who do you trust to obtain that data? i could find 10 articles that show changes in sea level due to ice cap shrinkage and 10 articles that refute it.

it's a conundrum of sorts.

[exlude]

interesting.

then i guess the only way to truthfully determine whether or not they are shrinking would be to measure for changes in sea level.

but, who do you trust to obtain that data? i could find 10 articles that show changes in sea level due to ice cap shrinkage and 10 articles that refute it.

it's a conundrum of sorts.

Only way to do it is actually read the journals, quite honestly. Take a look at their methods and then do your own judgement. Also, be sure to read their peer reviews.

Interesting read on the sea levels/ice caps:
Over 15 years ago, John Sansom published a paper in Journal of Climate that showed no net warming of Antarctica. While it was widely cited by critics of global warming doom, no one seemed to take notice. After all, it relied on only a handful of stations. Then, in 2002, Peter Doran published a more comprehensive analysis in Nature and found a cooling trend.


At the same time, a deluge of stories appeared, paradoxically, about Antarctic warming. These studies concentrated on the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, the narrow strip of land that juts out towards South America. That region, which comprises less than one-half of one percent of Antarctica, is warming because the surrounding ocean has warmed.


Warmer water evaporates more moisture. The colder the land surface over which that moisture passes, the more it snows. So, Antarctica as a whole should gain snow and ice. Last year, C.H. Davis published a paper in Science about how this accumulating snowfall over East Antarctica was reducing sea level rise. This year, Duncan Wingham, at the 2005 Earth Observations summit in Brussels, demonstrated the phenomenon is observed all over Antarctica.


Greenland is more complex. In 2000, William Krabill estimated the contribution of Greenland to sea level rise of 0.13 mm per year, or a half an inch per century. That's not very much different than zero. Just last month, using satellite altimetry, O.M. Johannessen published a remarkable finding in Science that the trend in Greenland ice is a gain of 5.4 cm (two inches) per year.


Almost all of the gain in Greenland is for areas greater than 5000 feet in elevation (which is most of the place). Below that, there is glacial recession. It shouldn't be lost on anyone that because no one ventures into the hostile interior of Greenland, all we see are pictures of the receding glaciers near the coast!


The temperature situation in Greenland is more mixed than in Antarctica. Over the last 75 years, there's been cooling in the southern portion (where the recession is greatest) and some warming in the North.


The only other masses of ice on the planet that can contribute to sea level rise are the non-polar glaciers, but they are very few and far between. The biggest is the Himalayan ice cap, but it's so high that a substantial portion will always remain. Most of the rest are teeny objects tucked away in high elevation nooks and crannies, like our Glacier National Park.


If all these glaciers melted completely -- including the Himalayan ice cap -- sea level could rise no more than five to seven inches, because there's just not that much mass of ice, compared to Antarctica and Greenland.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4470

[Paladin]

i would define my position as being in the middle. i don't think that drastic and hasty actions are required, but i also think it would be foolish to ignore global warming and it's effects on climate..

OK, let's look into it. You have finally come arund to say that no hasty or drastic measures need to be taken. I think everyone would agree we need to see if things can be done to slow the warming, but until now you seemed to be leaning toward the extreme side.

BTW, your middle is most peoples far left, so stop trying to impress by saying how freaking moderate your extreme views are. LOL

i think the first step is acknowledging the effects of industry, automobiles, cows(j/k),etc.. have on increasing green house gases. then make an solid effort to reduce emissions in a practical way that doesn't overtly change our way of life or hinder the economy. i think a happy medium could be a reality if this issue wasn't so polarized..

I doubt anyone would not concede that humans have had some affect on global warming. I do know that there is a lot of disagreement upon how much affect we have had.

Will you answer my question? How much do you think it has had on global warming as a percentage?



i think there is credible evidence that shows arctic and anarctic are receding and most glaziers around the world are shrinking, which in turn will raise sea levels..

I think most people would agree we are going through a warming trend, but is it something to get upset about? I am not sure.

What if this warming only raised sea level 1/2 inch? What if it raised it 5 feet? Both of them are raising of sea levels, but one doesn't concern me at all and the other could be devastating.



i think human influence has a measured effect on current global warming trends. what is debatable is how much?.

I will once again ask for your opinion of how much human influence has had on the current warming trend.



i'm not an ecologist or environmental expert, so there is only so much myself or anyone will be able to contribute without formal education on the subject.


I think there is a warming trend right now, but in the 60's some thought there was a cooling trend. The current Al Gore hysteria is all about political and monetary gain IMO.

[46Tbird]

but, who do you trust to obtain that data? i could find 10 articles that show changes in sea level due to ice cap shrinkage and 10 articles that refute it.

it's a conundrum of sorts.
You may not realize it, but that is the smartest thing you have ever typed on this site. Congradulations. Yes with a D, that's dfwstangs style baby.

Blah blah blah, there were huge forest fires before we got here and everything still continued to live. Ice caps swell and wane. Sea levels rise and fall. I got news, life doesn't go away because it gets warm - it blossoms.

The hype is all about greed, has nothing to do with anyone that gives a flying fuck about the environment. People that really care don't have five-digit electric bills and private aircraft. :rolleyes:

But frankly, no one actually gives a shit enough to do something that impacts their daily routine. Hard to dispute the truth.

[Paladin]

In context of the antarctic link I posted earlier, the data is flawed. People are saying the icecap is shrinking when in fact it's merely changing. All the measurements for "shrinkage" and many for temperature change were taken on a peninsula that juts out towards S. America. And while this is getting warmer and eroding, the more central mass of Antarctica is growing colder and expanding, not in width but in depth.

Very interesting, I did not know that.

[usmcluke]

Blah blah blah, there were huge forest fires before we got here and everything still continued to live. Ice caps swell and wane. Sea levels rise and fall. I got news, life doesn't go away because it gets warm - it blossoms.


Damn Danny your are going to make me disagree with ya. Look at a fragile ecosystem such as the Galapagos, when El Nino comes in it shifts life giving cold water currents away from the islands and kills many animals. This is not particulary a problem as it ensures that only the strongest of each species can reproduce but there are some ecosystems that thrive on cold water. As many as half of the animal populations are killed and some species stop breeding altogether during these times.

I agree that humans have contributed less than 5% of "global warming". I consider it to be a natural thing only SLIGHTY exacerbated by humans. Hell one volcano can belch more green house gases in one month than all the cars in the world. Lets legislate against the volcanos and cap off them bitches before the sky starts falling.

[46Tbird]

Damn Danny your are going to make me disagree with ya. Look at a fragile ecosystem such as the Galapagos, when El Nino comes in it shifts life giving cold water currents away from the islands and kills many animals. This is not particulary a problem as it ensures that only the strongest of each species can reproduce but there are some ecosystems that thrive on cold water. As many as half of the animal populations are killed and some species stop breeding altogether during these times.

I agree that humans have contributed less than 5% of "global warming". I consider it to be a natural thing only SLIGHTY exacerbated by humans. Hell one volcano can belch more green house gases in one month than all the cars in the world. Lets legislate against the volcanos and cap off them bitches before the sky starts falling.
Go ahead and disagree, but everything in every ecosystem will eventually die, and the species will all die off. They'll be replaced by hardier creatures better suited to the environment. Kinda the way it's always been and always will be.

The temperature change over the past 150yrs is much less than the natural swings that preceded it; that means when these same normal/natural shifts take place that these same species would be dying.

[Mustangman_2000]

Will you answer my question? How much do you think it has had on global warming as a percentage?





I will once again ask for your opinion of how much human influence has had on the current warming trend.



it depends on what you read and by whom.

if i was to take all the extreme points of view i have read and did some simple math, i would say that human influence is measurable and graphable. i would say that natural factors are equally responsible.

because it's difficult to sift through the indifference and the haste to find the truth.

i'm thinking it's somewhere right in the middle.

[Mustangman_2000]

The hype is all about greed, has nothing to do with anyone that gives a flying fuck about the environment.

.

i care. it's important to me.

[46Tbird]

i care. it's important to me.
No you don't. You WANT to care. Yet you still drive an automobile to work and have even taken it drag racing. You have not made it a priority, same as everyone else in the world. Congradulations, you're normal.

[AL P]

but, who do you trust to obtain that data?

Whoever isn't getting paid.

[Paladin]

it depends on what you read and by whom.

if i was to take all the extreme points of view i have read and did some simple math, i would say that human influence is measurable and graphable. i would say that natural factors are equally responsible.

because it's difficult to sift through the indifference and the haste to find the truth.

i'm thinking it's somewhere right in the middle.

Man, you do try and avoid, don't you?

I will assume that your "right in the middle" means you think it is nearly 50% due to human influence. No wonder you didn't want to post that up, it would only reinforce your liberal leanings once again.

[Walsted]

it depends on what you read and by whom.

if i was to take all the extreme points of view i have read and did some simple math, i would say that human influence is measurable and graphable. i would say that natural factors are equally responsible.

because it's difficult to sift through the indifference and the haste to find the truth.

i'm thinking it's somewhere right in the middle.

I disagree with the "measurable and graphable" part. Instruments have changed, new technology and techniques have been implemented, and recording methodology has changed. Consequently, I don't believe that we can use the data to determine trends with incremental changes smaller than the recording margin of error.

If one wishes to say that human activity, through entropy, contributes to global warming, I will have to agree 100%. I don't believe the contribution to be significant, though. If you wish to say that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed politically, I respectfully disagree. In this case, I believe it is one of the issues that the Democratic Party is using to try to energize a group to be anti-Republican, and is one of the issues that hurts the Democratic Party credibility.

As an experiment, ask those most militant about man-made global warming if they would change their position if the greatest proponent of man-made global warming was Newt Gingrich. If they change their position, it is political, not scientific. If they do not, I respect them, but still disagree.

Of course, I could be wrong and invite discussion.

[jyro]

i care. it's important to me.


Here is President Bushs complete speech text
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

Here are complete paragraphs , not excerpts placed together to make paragraphs.

I agree with the complete text as spoken by President Bush:

"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I've just met with senior members of my administration who are working to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing the important issues of global climate change.


This is an issue that I know is very important to the nations of Europe, which I will be visiting for the first time as President. The earth's well-being is also an issue important to America. And it's an issue that should be important to every nation in every part of our world.

The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.

The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways. But the process used to bring nations together to discuss our joint response to climate change is an important one. That is why I am today committing the United States of America to work within the United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop with our friends and allies and nations throughout the world an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming.

My Cabinet-level working group has met regularly for the last 10 weeks to review the most recent, most accurate, and most comprehensive science. They have heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many theories and suppositions. The working group asked the highly-respected National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change.

First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it. For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space. And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.

The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.

There are only two ways to stabilize concentration of greenhouse gases. One is to avoid emitting them in the first place; the other is to try to capture them after they're created. And there are problems with both approaches. We're making great progress through technology, but have not yet developed cost-effective ways to capture carbon emissions at their source; although there is some promising work that is being done.

And a growing population requires more energy to heat and cool our homes, more gas to drive our cars. Even though we're making progress on conservation and energy efficiency and have significantly reduced the amount of carbon emissions per unit of GDP.

Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries.

This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.

India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. These and other developing countries that are experiencing rapid growth face challenges in reducing their emissions without harming their economies. We want to work cooperatively with these countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and maintain economic growth.

Kyoto also failed to address two major pollutants that have an impact on warming: black soot and tropospheric ozone. Both are proven health hazards. Reducing both would not only address climate change, but also dramatically improve people's health.

Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it's not sound public policy.

That's why 95 members of the United States Senate expressed a reluctance to endorse such an approach. Yet, America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change.

We recognize our responsibility and will meet it -- at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advancing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions.

I also call on Congress to work with my administration to achieve the significant emission reductions made possible by implementing the clean energy technologies proposed in our energy plan. Our working group study has made it clear that we need to know a lot more.

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change commences to stabilizing concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate; but no one knows what that level is. The United States has spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990 -- three times as much as any other country, and more than Japan and all 15 nations of the EU combined.
Today, I make our investment in science even greater. My administration will establish the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative to study areas of uncertainty and identify priority areas where investments can make a difference.

I'm directing my Secretary of Commerce, working with other agencies, to set priorities for additional investments in climate change research, review such investments, and to improve coordination amongst federal agencies. We will fully fund high-priority areas for climate change science over the next five years. We'll also provide resources to build climate observation systems in developing countries and encourage other developed nations to match our American commitment.

And we propose a joint venture with the EU, Japan and others to develop state-of-the-art climate modeling that will help us better understand the causes and impacts of climate change. America's the leader in technology and innovation. We all believe technology offers great promise to significantly reduce emissions -- especially carbon capture, storage and sequestration technologies.

So we're creating the National Climate Change Technology Initiative to strengthen research at universities and national labs, to enhance partnerships in applied research, to develop improved technology for measuring and monitoring gross and net greenhouse gas emissions, and to fund demonstration projects for cutting-edge technologies, such as bioreactors and fuel cells.

Even with the best science, even with the best technology, we all know the United States cannot solve this global problem alone. We're building partnerships within the Western Hemisphere and with other like-minded countries. Last week, Secretary Powell signed a new CONCAUSA Declaration with the countries of Central America, calling for cooperative efforts on science research, monitoring and measuring of emissions, technology development, and investment in forest conservation.

We will work with the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research and other institutions to better understand regional impacts of climate change. We will establish a partnership to monitor and mitigate emissions. And at home, I call on Congress to work with my administration on the initiatives to enhance conservation and energy efficiency outlined in my energy plan, to implement the increased use of renewables, natural gas and hydropower that are outlined in the plan, and to increase the generation of safe and clean nuclear power.

By increasing conservation and energy efficiency and aggressively using these clean energy technologies, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by significant amounts in the coming years. We can make great progress in reducing emissions, and we will. Yet, even that isn't enough.

I've asked my advisors to consider approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those that tap the power of markets, help realize the promise of technology and ensure the widest-possible global participation. As we analyze the possibilities, we will be guided by several basic principles. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Our actions should be measured as we learn more from science and build on it.

Our approach must be flexible to adjust to new information and take advantage of new technology. We must always act to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity for our citizens and for citizens throughout the world. We should pursue market-based incentives and spur technological innovation.

And, finally, our approach must be based on global participation, including that of developing countries whose net greenhouse gas emissions now exceed those in the developed countries.

I've asked Secretary Powell and Administrator Whitman to ensure they actively work with friends and allies to explore common approaches to climate change consistent with these principles. Each step we take will increase our knowledge. We will act, learn, and act again, adjusting our approaches as science advances and technology evolves.

Our administration will be creative. We're committed to protecting our environment and improving our economy, to acting at home and working in concert with the world. This is an administration that will make commitments we can keep, and keep the commitments that we make.

I look forward to continued discussions with our friends and allies about this important issue.

Thank you for coming. "

[jyro]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=great+global+warming+swindle

[Mustangman_2000]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=great+global+warming+swindle

yep, a group of scientist contesting and refuting the effects of human influence on global warming.

i can go on youtube an probably find a video that would have a group of scientist stating the diametric opposite in full support of human influenced global warming.

it's a merry-go-round, jyro.

anywhere you look there are voluminous amounts of material supporting both sides of the argument.

[Mustangman_2000]

I disagree with the "measurable and graphable" part. Instruments have changed, new technology and techniques have been implemented, and recording methodology has changed. Consequently, I don't believe that we can use the data to determine trends with incremental changes smaller than the recording margin of error.

If one wishes to say that human activity, through entropy, contributes to global warming, I will have to agree 100%. I don't believe the contribution to be significant, though. If you wish to say that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed politically, I respectfully disagree. In this case, I believe it is one of the issues that the Democratic Party is using to try to energize a group to be anti-Republican, and is one of the issues that hurts the Democratic Party credibility.

As an experiment, ask those most militant about man-made global warming if they would change their position if the greatest proponent of man-made global warming was Newt Gingrich. If they change their position, it is political, not scientific. If they do not, I respect them, but still disagree.

Of course, I could be wrong and invite discussion.

i have now seen a plethora of data supporting both sides of this debate.

i think it's a very complex issue that might never be completely solved because this is such a polarized political issue.

it's unfortunate.

[OkieHog]

i have now seen a plethora of data supporting both sides of this debate.

i think it's a very complex issue that might never ever completely solved because this is such a polarized political issue.

it's unfortunate.

What concerns me is the seeming arrogance of the proponents of the global warming paradigm. Recently, Al Gore, when asked by a commentator about the question of opposing evidence, stated (very arrogantly in my estimation), "The debate is over. There is no evidence to the contrary." Now, I am sorry, but this sounds like special pleading to me. It says, I won't debate the issue, because there is no need to debate the issue, because I have determined that there is no credible evidence to refute what I believe!" Hmmm.
Interestingly, a noted British scientist has now challenged Gore to a worldwide TV debate. He says that Gore's "evidence" is false and falsifable, even "poppycock." In my estimation, if Gore refuses to debate this, he has declared himself the loser!
If the evidence is so clear-cut, as he claims, then engage the dissenters, present the undeniable evidence, and move your position forward!
If I were a betting man, especially after watching Gore on TV the other night, though, I would bet he will not engage in the debate. Too much to lose!
Just my 2 cents worth!

[Casper]

interesting.

then i guess the only way to truthfully determine whether or not they are shrinking would be to measure for changes in sea level.

but, who do you trust to obtain that data? i could find 10 articles that show changes in sea level due to ice cap shrinkage and 10 articles that refute it.

it's a conundrum of sorts.

Nope. Nature in 2000 ran a whole series of articles showing how melting ice caps would actually reduce ocean temps globally. The idea of thermal ocean expansion only works standalone. This got much fanfare because it allowed the greenhouse advocates to dismiss stable ocean levels in the face of climate change. All in all it means nothing.

And how would you measure sea level? The East coast of the US is sinking due to tectonic rebound. Same with the Mediterranian. There is one place on Earth that is geologically stable, and that is Tasmania.

Here's a picture of a sea level benchmark carved in 1841; difficult to see but near the center is the carving. "According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004.
Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre."

http://www.john-daly.com/photo.jpg

www.john-daly.com

Daly was an early critic and a damn effective one.

I think I see where your mindset comes from; in emergency medicine you work under the paradigm of preparing for the worst and assuming a problem. That is probably a good paradigm in your feild, but you can't anthropomorphosize nature; after all, humans are natural too. Hoover dam is just as natural as a beaver damn on a tributary in the grand scheme of things. What may be seen as a problem, like an extinction of large species, is a boon for others. That's how punctuated equilibrium works.

[Stevo]

yep, a group of scientist contesting and refuting the effects of human influence on global warming.

i can go on youtube an probably find a video that would have a group of scientist stating the diametric opposite in full support of human influenced global warming.

it's a merry-go-round, jyro.

anywhere you look there are voluminous amounts of material supporting both sides of the argument.

You problem is that you are looking at the scientists, instead of the science. Just because someone has some 'data' that the GWT is actual problem, doesn't mean that the 'data' in question is composed of all the facts.
Just because there is some scientists that say it is an issue, doesn't mean the science confirms it. Everyone with a brain knows it is just politically/economically driven at this point.

Stevo

[Mustangman_2000]

You problem is that you are looking at the scientists, instead of the science. Just because someone has some 'data' that the GWT is actual problem, doesn't mean that the 'data' in question is composed of all the facts.
Just because there is some scientists that say it is an issue, doesn't mean the science confirms it. Everyone with a brain knows it is just politically/economically driven at this point.

Stevo

i'm looking at the scientist instead of the science?..ok.

hate to be the one to break this to you, but there is a mountain of evidence(science, facts, and reports) that support BOTH sides of the argument.

this issue is complex and highly polarized because of all the conflicting data.

you can dismiss my science and i could easily dismiss yours on the same basis. i have looked at both sides of the argument and the science for both is equally compelling and well documented.

GWT is an asinine and ultimately a futile debate for the time being.

[AL P]

It will be resolved just fine in about ten years after a new crisis du jour is manufactured. Everyone will be sitting around saying "I can't believe we thought that shit" while simultaneously buying into the next bullshit cause hook, line and sinker.

[Gaber]

Man did not create global warming. It's all bs.

[Stevo]

GWT is an asinine and ultimately a futile debate for the time being.

Your daddy Al (Gore) doesn't think so. :rolleyes:

Stevo

[Mustangman_2000]

Your daddy Al (Gore) doesn't think so. :rolleyes:

Stevo

it's something he feels passionate about.....more power to him.

however, the egregious use of electricity in his very affluent home doesn't help his case any. even though he is using a green energy supplier it still doesn't reflect well.

i would like to see more public or town hall style debates on this issue with politicians from all parties.

[exlude]

How passionate could he possibly be? If he were any bit sincere he would give up that estate. He wants everyone else to sacrifice so you can feel better while he travels the country in his private jet. What a sack of shit.