1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

dog that ate global warming?

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by GabrielConroy, Sep 24, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GabrielConroy

    GabrielConroy Well-Known Member


    I got this through cato but the article is originally from a conservamtive publication

    Read the original article before posting but i found a laymans sumary

    * The original data is missing
    * The data that is left has been massaged and nobody knows in what way
    * The UN report reliability is now approximately 0
    * There is no science left to the IPCC report that is basis of Kyoto and Cap'n'tax
    * Lots of people don't think there was any conclusive science to it in the first place
    * Some may speculate that the IPCC report was a kludge from the start
    * Cap'n'Tax should now be dead
    * EPA end run around it can be legally challenged

    interesting stuff can only speculate as to whats going on
    i wonder why this isnt a bigger story havent heard anything about it on the news :huh:

    same story but an easier read
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2009
  2. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    I think mankind doesn't understand the cycles of global warming and cooling.
  3. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

  4. Young suicider

    Young suicider Well-Known Member

    That looked like so much reading I didn't evan read it,sounded stupid and funny though
  5. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    That this comes from a convervative source is already enough to find it suspect. Most rightist publications are sent against denying global warming, particularly since it affects big buisness. The summary certainly doesn't help either - asserting something to be utterly unreliable and false just sounds like a poor attempt to convince people through assertion.

    The nuances of explaining global warming are often very complex, to the point of sounding contradictory. But cooling is part of the effect, since warming in one areas can affect currents that lead to cooling of others. Climate change is also a long-term development, and given our short scope of time we seem to dismiss that which is still some seemingly long time away, even if it is threatening.

    Besides, it's common sense: we pump billions of tons of carbon a day world-wide, whilst the number of carbon absorbing trees declines. How can this have no negative affect on the Earth? Obviously something has to be done.
  6. 12years

    12years Well-Known Member

    I always thought the debate wasn't so much about whether or not global warming exists (we all know it does), but whether it is a normal event or something caused by human actions. I don't know what the article is about, but 25 years of data isn't going to mean much, in the grander scheme of things.

    I might actually know what I'm talking about in another three months, but as for now my instincts tell me that human actions can't have that much effect on the earth. It's my instincts against your common sense, how about that?
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2009
  7. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Of course that's your call. =P

    My question is simply how human actions have no effect on the Earth? You don't believe 50-70 billion tons of 'extra' C02 being pumped into the atmoshphere would have some contributing factor to global warming? Nor the destruction of carbon absorbing trees, further contributing to the atmoshphere build-up?

    Now even if it doesn't play a factor - even if we're not responsbile for global warming - it's certainly obvious that we need to cut back on the enviornmental degradation. Ecological balances are very delicate, and degrading it can have dire consequences for things like agriculture. The risk of not acting, and being wrong, is greater than the risk of acting for 'nothing,' which would at least improve the planet's enviornment.
  8. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Zurk I disagree, the risk of acting irresponsibly could drastically hurt our, and other well developed nations, economic systems. Besides, with the rate that our technology increases, do you not think we could develop the techniques necessary to change our atmosphere over the next few hundred years?
  9. Mandyrose

    Mandyrose Member

    Just want to throw in my two cents on a topic that will have great economic and quality-of-life impact on all of us very shortly. I'd like to leave the emotion out of it if I can and try to appeal to common sense and direct scientific observation if possible.

    I have to say, quite honestly, that most people in the USA have very little understanding of basic physical science. Biology is mostly an abstraction to us because we live lives of relative comfort compared to a great deal of the world's population. This is not to say that people are stupid, because they are simply missing the education necessary to understand basic physical patterns in nature. Most people do not know anything about the ecology around their very house, could not survive without modern conveniences, is it any wonder that some do not understand the basic physical underpinnings of global warming?

    I was raised this way as well. But over the last several years, I have spent a lot of time in the Ohio woods with a lot of old scientists of every stripe, observing Ohio's ecology. I now know the names of all of my native plants and animals, and what they do at different times of the year. I can tell you that when you hear it from the mouths of so many very old naturalists and scientists, that global warming is really happening, and then you see its effects firsthand, you start understanding.

    Just to give one example, flowering plants are beginning to bloom much, much too early every year. This disturbs the balance of the whole forest ecosystem here. If something blooms too early and the flowers are killed by frost, the whole reproductive cycle of that plant is negated until the next year. When this happens year after year, extinction follows. We are in the midst of a tremendous functional extinction here in Ohio alone. This is an ecosystem which has intelligently evolved for millions of years, and it is going down in one century. I'm not even talking about the rainforest, I'm talking about right here in the heart of the midwest USA.

    Global warming is not a myth, it is an observed phenomenon. Whether the phenomenon is man-made or a natural ebb and flow of our planet (such things do happen, after all, the planet has switched magnetic poles several times in its history-- not to mention the continents themselves shift around!),
    is debatable. Nevertheless we should do all we can on our end to lessen all unecessary negative impact, with as much common sense toward economic pressures as possible. This cannot happen overnight. It will be very difficult. But it should be a sober debate with all the faculties of reason in our power, not a shouting match for political pundits. This issue is very real and serious and deserves to be treated that way.
  10. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    That's a gamble though, and whose to say that technology will come on time? Our economies will go through a lot of hurt and adjustments, but the long-term benefits - efficiency, sustainability, and a healthy environment - are worth it. Our economies will have to adjust sooner or later anyway: man-made or not, we'll have to adjust to a changing world, with less interference in nature and less dependence on finite, polluting resources. I'm thinking that it's better soon, while we have time, then latter.

    I understand that's a subjective notion though. Just my opinion.
  11. worlds edge

    worlds edge Well-Known Member

    And most leftist sources are uncritical in their acceptance of the phenomenon. Should we consider them "suspect" as well?

    Except that the article's central assertion is an easily rebuttable one. As in, if they have the data they could simply produce it. If not to someone antagonistic to global warming, then to someone who supports the idea. Or, alternatively, they could publicly admit that their conclusions can no longer be verified since there's no data to back them up. And since I'm under the impression that science depends on the duplication of results by multiple parties before any conclusions are drawn, global warming supporters would then either need to discount this data or I guess reconstruct it.

    I don't disagree, actually. However, it seems to me that both sides in this debate are driven by ideology as much as anything else. And at least the skeptics of the hypothesis aren't hypocrites like Al Gore.
  12. worlds edge

    worlds edge Well-Known Member

    BTW, the title of this article was kind of cute. I'm fairly sure it refers to this:

  13. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    I certainly agree over time things will have to change zurk, I just want people to take a look at the reasons these people are proposing legislation... altruistic politicians? I would love to believe that, but all of history has taught me not to be so naive... what will the economic impact of such plans such as cap and trade have? Drastic increases on prices of everyday things we have to buy. Will it help the enviroment? Possibly, but when our unemployment rate is at such a high level, i can't help but to think that maybe this is something we need to be a little bit more reasonable with.
  14. GabrielConroy

    GabrielConroy Well-Known Member

    As much as i hope youre right i interpreted it as a play on "the dog ate my homework" though i like yours much better

    and btw people read the article this isnt some general thread about global warming its about how theyve lost a lot of the data used to support it


    an important collection of evidence has been lost and there isnt nearly as much evidence for or against it now

    the circumstances are obviously suspicious though maybe it was just an error? :huh:

    The article is from a right wing publication but its stating a fact:the data has been lost

    (btw unrelated rant but its not intellectually honest to merely classify any given argument as "liberal" or "conservative" and basing your entire belief based on the label as opposed ACTUALLY considering whats being said if thats not closed mindedness and intolerance i dont know what is)
  15. Zola

    Zola Antiquities Friend


  16. Zola

    Zola Antiquities Friend

    Not that I'm a particular fan of his, but what's the basis of your description of Al Gore as a hypocrite.

  17. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Because his investments will pay out quite a bit if more stringent regulations are passed regarding carbon emissions. Take a look at Generation Investment Management when you have some time. Once again whether or not we are killing the earth we need to look at the laws being proposed. Do these people actually care about the earth like they want you to believe or are they once again trying to line the pockets of their rich buddies? I do not believe the end justifies the means in any case.
  18. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Yes, we should in fact consider leftist sources as equally suspect, since one extreme is no better than the other. Besides, a lot of their solutions are unrealistic or unsustainable (such as biofuels derived from soybeans and corn). I only pointed out my suspicion toward right-wingers because that was the context of this discussion, given the article.

    I didn't say it wasn't capable of rebuttal, I was merely critiquing the apparent arrogance of it's assertion. I'd rather than facts be left to speak for themselves - and people be allowed to make their own assessment - than for them to be followed by haughtiness that so readily states that the other side is completely without merit. Numerous researchers have drawn much evidence for the occurrence of global warming - the problem is that there is a lot of buisness and politics-based interest involved in discrediting such research, to say nothing of the complex nuances of measuring and explaining something as convoluted as climate.

    Of course ideology plays a part, and it can be taken farther than the facts may justify. However, from the research I've done there's a lot of standing with regards to global warming, including studies that seem to show the current trends don't fit with past cyclical ones. I understand their not full-proof facts, but they seem good enough for me.

    And no, the skeptics aren't hypocrites, but a number of them are certainly self-serving. Both sides of this debate - as with any - have members guilty of lacking integrity.

    I agree man, but the same goes for politicians on the other side - the politicians against these measures are often times out to defend interests in energy and industry, so they're just as guilty. Besides, not all the work to be done is political either. And as for the economic damage, it goes back to the lesser of the two evils: the economic and social damage done by failing crops, rising sea levels, and the massive migrations they'd both create would be far more damaging in the long run. Indeed, it comes down to which we're willing to deal with.
  19. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Looks like we will deal with all of the above as I only see stalemates in the future ;)
  20. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    MANDYROSE says it all. And who gives a shit if Al Gore is a hypocrite? The fact is that 99.9% of the scientific communtity believes that the warming and increased carbon emmisions are a direct result of heavy industry (over the last 75-100 years), overconsumption and deforrestation.

    Yes, the earth tilts on it's own axis and there are cycles of warming and cooling. But to think that the factors above have played no role in what is happening is hubris.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.