Miss Palin: Global warming not man made

[wop]

The important thing to remember here is that the "Global Warming, or No Global Warming" debate doesn't need to be answered.

It makes good sense to reduce, reuse, recycle, conserve, clean-up, and generally buy and use products that reduce our environmental footprint. It is the correct thing to do and makes us good Global Citizens.

Too bad that in the self absorbed World we live in, being good neighbours is an almost unheard of concept.

 

[OddSox]

The important thing to remember here is that the "Global Warming, or No Global Warming" debate doesn't need to be answered.

It makes good sense to reduce, reuse, recycle, conserve, clean-up, and generally buy and use products that reduce our environmental footprint. It is the correct thing to do and makes us good Global Citizens.

Too bad that in the self absorbed World we live in, being good neighbours is an almost unheard of concept.

Actually, it does need to be answered. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, and neither is water vapour, and I don't think methane is either (or at least not really bad). Let's consider putting our efforts towards reducing _real_ pollution that causes smog, or kills fish and frogs, or fills our cities and parks with poison or causes disease or...

As a conservative, I might even consider supporting a 'pollution tax' of some sort even if it ended up costing me money...

 

[fuji]

First off, anyone referring to Wikipedia as their primary source for anything cannot be taken seriously.

First off, re-read what I wrote. The wiki page is a list of authoritative sources. I did not say the wiki page itself was an authoritative source. If you bothered to visit the page you will see it is just an exhaustive list of sources, it is not an article, it is a list of links to the authoritative agencies and what they've said on the topic.

it can never be proven 100% right, or wrong.

That's correct. NO theory can ever be proven 100% right or wrong. In fact it's a virtual certainty that every theory, from relativeity to the standard model of particle physics to the theories around global warming to evolution--they are all wrong in some way.

In fact our theory of gravity is utterly incompatible with our theory of particle physics. One of them MUST be wrong. On this basis you can argue, accurately, that gravity is just a theory and not proven. Nevertheless when you drop a hammer on your toe you will find out that this wrong theory of gravity anyway makes reasonably good predictions.

The same is true of theories about climate change. They turn out to have useful predictive power--the ones that posit a human cause of climate change anyway. They turn out to have accurately predicted data that wasn't know when the theory was generated. The alternative theories turned out to predict wrong values for that data. Just like the hammer falling on your toe the theories which to date have had the best predictive power predict that the pollution we are generating is warming the planet.

I agree with most scientists that even if this is happening, the greenhouse gases are not present in nearly enough quantity to see significant changes in global temperatures.

See the list of citations on the Wiki link to see how many scientists agree with you. It's an exhaustive list of the peer reviewed journal articles and statements from other peer reviewed circles on the topic.

The reality is that most scientists do not agree with you.

Another reality is that from your description of science I can tell that if you actually are a scientist it is not in any of these areas, because you talk of controlled experiments as though they were the only way to provide evidence for a theory.

In fields like climate research the gold standard is whether or not your theory correctly predicts the values that will be found for data that is as yet unmeasured or even unmeasurable. When that data is finally discovered those theories that predicted it properly are strengthened, and those that predicted radically different values are invalidated by the findings.

It was through this process that the theories that global warming had non-human causes were invalidated: they predicted values that turned out to be false. The theories that global warming had at least partial human causes predicted values which, when finally measured, confirmed the predictive power of the theory.

putting water vapour into the atmosphere

Your error is in the phrase "the atmosphere", what exactly do you mean by that? Gasses at ground level are irrelevant.

Perhaps you should leave this to scientists who actually study this field rather than speculating on your own, you obviously lack the required expertise. In that respect you, and any policy maker who lacks the required expertise (which is pretty much all of them) should instead rely on the current best information available from the community of scientists who are experts in this area.

You will find links to those consensus findings on the wiki page above. Note again, I am not citing the wiki page as a source, I am pointing out that it has an excellent list of citations, and I urge you to follow up on them.

 

[OddSox]

Your error is in the phrase "the atmosphere", what exactly do you mean by that? Gasses at ground level are irrelevant.

A lot of bafflegab there - but "Gasses at ground level are irrelevant."? You mean carbon dioxide and methane and all the others except ozone? (is ozone good or bad this year?)

 

[all_hat]

Global cooling

The one thing that the global warming alarmists cannot explain is why global temperatures have been steadily decreasing since peaking back in 1998. In fact, the drop in temperatures in 2008 is so significant that it negates all the warming of the past 28 years.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

Of course this flies in the face of the global warming orthodoxy, so you don't hear much about it. But the truth be known, a cooler climate would be much more damaging to us than a warmer one.

 

[landscaper]

Take a read of this May 16, 2008 article from the National Post.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx

Anthropogenic global warming is a SCAM. As with all scams, one should follow the money. The Goracle has made $Millions from his alarmist movie and powerpoint presentations.

The United Nations, one of the most corrupt organizations in the world promotes the scam as a means to transfer vast amounts of $$$ from successful western democracies to impoverished and/or corrupt third world dictatorships.

And Liberals like Stephane Dion use it as a means to justify massive tax increases like the "Green Shaft" (revenue neutral my ass) and more government control of every aspect of our lives.

Sarah Palin is right. John McCain and Barack Obama are wrong.

Bummer I was saving this one for later.

The whole point I am trying to make is that science does not care if you are a ravening capitalist with an engineering degree who wants to pave the planet with 48 inches of agregate to make construction easier or if you want to send everybody back to the caves living in grass skirts and animal hides. Science is science, theories MUST by adapted to observed facts, scientific method 101.

Politicians and special interest groups use the parts of the science that furthers their specific goals, nothing more nothing less, and no argument is allowed. The refutation of the scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming shows abundantly that the science is not driving the discussion, the politics of the science is the driving force.

One point brought up was the question of why CO2 was the chosen devil in the debate.

Reduceing CO2 emmissions would cause the most damage to the North American ( read american) economy of any choice. If you take a good long look at the people who were behind the original global warming push you will find a large number of basically anarchists who have found religion. They are the same people who show up at G7 and WTO meetings with the rent a riots.

The statement that ground level emmisions don't count is stupid on its face. The main driver of " global warming" is CO2 according to the arguments put forward in favour of global warming. Do not all CO2 emmisions begin at ground level, seeing as the vast preponderance of them are emmitted byautomobile or coal fired generators ? The amount generated by aircraft is insignificant in volume .

 

[enduser1]

Take a read of this May 16, 2008 article from the National Post.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx

Anthropogenic global warming is a SCAM. As with all scams, one should follow the money. The Goracle has made $Millions from his alarmist movie and powerpoint presentations.

The United Nations, one of the most corrupt organizations in the world promotes the scam as a means to transfer vast amounts of $$$ from successful western democracies to impoverished and/or corrupt third world dictatorships.

And Liberals like Stephane Dion use it as a means to justify massive tax increases like the "Green Shaft" (revenue neutral my ass) and more government control of every aspect of our lives.

Sarah Palin is right. John McCain and Barack Obama are wrong.

Very Well said. I still think Obama will get elected. BTW I fear that we may get that Dion NDP Green coalition. Ugh

EU

 

[chiller_boy]

Anthropogenic global warming is a SCAM. As with all scams, one should follow the money. The Goracle has made $Millions from his alarmist movie and powerpoint presentations.

The United Nations, one of the most corrupt organizations in the world promotes the scam as a means to transfer vast amounts of $$$ from successful western democracies to impoverished and/or corrupt third world dictatorships.

And Liberals like Stephane Dion use it as a means to justify massive tax increases like the "Green Shaft" (revenue neutral my ass) and more government control of every aspect of our lives.

Sarah Palin is right. John McCain and Barack Obama are wrong.

So global warming is all about Al Gore making money. What a crock. And the Noble guys gave him the prize because they wanted him to make more money.

And the UN is corrupt. Thats why they promote Global Warming. Nonsense.

And poor Stephan. He is going to provide massive tax increases even though he is promising a tax decrease.

And then there's Sara. Her grasp of scientific principles is so profound she believes the world was created 6000 years ago. But we are expected to believe her view on man made globlal warming. Perhaps you should follow your own dictum and follow the money. Sarah wants the money for Alaska's oil.

Global warming, if it is as bad as some have predicted, will make the world a nightmare for our grandchildren. And the solution is to cut back on pollution at an economic cost to ourselves.

What kind of people are we that we would risk the earth because we think that Al Gore is making too much money.

 

[landscaper]

So global warming is all about Al Gore making money. What a crock. And the Noble guys gave him the prize because they wanted him to make more money.

And the UN is corrupt. Thats why they promote Global Warming. Nonsense.

And poor Stephan. He is going to provide massive tax increases even though he is promising a tax decrease.

And then there's Sara. Her grasp of scientific principles is so profound she believes the world was created 6000 years ago. But we are expected to believe her view on man made globlal warming. Perhaps you should follow your own dictum and follow the money. Sarah wants the money for Alaska's oil.

Global warming, if it is as bad as some have predicted, will make the world a nightmare for our grandchildren. And the solution is to cut back on pollution at an economic cost to ourselves.

What kind of people are we that we would risk the earth because we think that Al Gore is making too much money.

Al Gore is making a shit pot of money off global warming, including pay a company he ownes to provide carbon offsets for his really big house and travels around the world.

Its actually the Nobel Foundation named after the guy who invented dynamite, and yes the peole who select the winners are subject to political pressure and idealistic thinking, another notable Nobel Laureate Yasir Arafat terrorist.

As far as the U.N. being corrupt give your head a shake and read some newspapers, the Secretary Generals son was indited for fraud involving U.N. funds. Corruption is the norm in the U.N. not the exception

Sarah Palins view on global warming is just that her opinion to be given all the weight it deserves based on her experience and education. To indict her because she has a view that you disagree with because she has faith in something else is silly.

Your own statement If global warming is as bad as predicted , is the debate that has been going on here, the question is the science behind the predictions, some of us are of teh opinion that the science has questions that have not been answered, and because of that the models are worthless. Others insist the models must be true because they need it be so for political or other reasons. Which side of the debate you are on depends on your views.

We are the kind of people that don't take every alarmist view as gospel because it is the flavour of the moment, we question whether the facts are information or propoganda. The money question does not actually come into it for me, loads of money will be made in this thing regardless of which side you are on, and yes the oil companies will still make billions because the oil will be used for purposes other than fueling vehicals, and the green types will make billions converting over to green tech.

 

[danmand]

Al Gore is making a shit pot of money off global warming, including pay a company he ownes to provide carbon offsets for his really big house and travels around the world.

Its actually the Nobel Foundation named after the guy who invented dynamite, and yes the peole who select the winners are subject to political pressure and idealistic thinking, another notable Nobel Laureate Yasir Arafat terrorist.

As far as the U.N. being corrupt give your head a shake and read some newspapers, the Secretary Generals son was indited for fraud involving U.N. funds. Corruption is the norm in the U.N. not the exception

Sarah Palins view on global warming is just that her opinion to be given all the weight it deserves based on her experience and education. To indict her because she has a view that you disagree with because she has faith in something else is silly.

Your own statement If global warming is as bad as predicted , is the debate that has been going on here, the question is the science behind the predictions, some of us are of teh opinion that the science has questions that have not been answered, and because of that the models are worthless. Others insist the models must be true because they need it be so for political or other reasons. Which side of the debate you are on depends on your views.

We are the kind of people that don't take every alarmist view as gospel because it is the flavour of the moment, we question whether the facts are information or propoganda. The money question does not actually come into it for me, loads of money will be made in this thing regardless of which side you are on, and yes the oil companies will still make billions because the oil will be used for purposes other than fueling vehicals, and the green types will make billions converting over to green tech.

I find your world view a bit naive, to say the least. You think the Nobel committee
and the UN is crooked, the arctic and antarctic ice is not melting, climate is not
changing. The scientists are wrong.

On the other hand you believe in the US government, who is 7 years into
a war because of non existing WMD. Or are they there somewhere?

 

[enduser1]

I find your world view a bit naive, to say the least. You think the Nobel committee
and the UN is crooked, the arctic and antarctic ice is not melting, climate is not
changing. The scientists are wrong.

On the other hand you believe in the US government, who is 7 years into
a war because of non existing WMD. Or are they there somewhere?

Uhm,

Most Antartic Ice is not melting, the Larsen shelf is. Arctic Ice is melting, but not yet as much as the 1100's to the 1200's, when there were palm trees in England, Greenland was green and "French Wine" was English.

The reduction in the power of the earth's magnetic field is having an effect. The collapse of the earth's magnetic field will have an effect as the magnetic field protects the earth from cosmic radiation. The loss of the field even briefly will allow a massive amount of cosmic radiation to stream in.


EU

 

[Asterix]

Uhm,

Most Antartic Ice is not melting...

EU

If by most you mean most of it is still there, you're correct. Glaciers are the key, and by that measure the ice in the South Pole is melting rapidly, as are glaciers worldwide. Antarctica has well over 300 hundred glaciers that are retreating, and far more rapidly than scientists thouight possilbe even a few years age.

 

[danmand]

If by most you mean most of it is still there, you're correct. Glaciers are the key, and by that measure the ice in the South Pole is melting rapidly, as are glaciers worldwide. Antarctica has well over 300 hundred glaciers that are retreating, and far more rapidly than scientists thouight possilbe even a few years age.

Same with Greenland and the arctic ice.

 

[chiller_boy]

Al Gore is making a shit pot of money off global warming, including pay a company he ownes to provide carbon offsets for his really big house and travels around the world.

Its actually the Nobel Foundation named after the guy who invented dynamite, and yes the peole who select the winners are subject to political pressure and idealistic thinking, another notable Nobel Laureate Yasir Arafat terrorist.

As far as the U.N. being corrupt give your head a shake and read some newspapers, the Secretary Generals son was indited for fraud involving U.N. funds. Corruption is the norm in the U.N. not the exception

Sarah Palins view on global warming is just that her opinion to be given all the weight it deserves based on her experience and education. To indict her because she has a view that you disagree with because she has faith in something else is silly.

Your own statement If global warming is as bad as predicted , is the debate that has been going on here, the question is the science behind the predictions, some of us are of teh opinion that the science has questions that have not been answered, and because of that the models are worthless. Others insist the models must be true because they need it be so for political or other reasons. Which side of the debate you are on depends on your views.

We are the kind of people that don't take every alarmist view as gospel because it is the flavour of the moment, we question whether the facts are information or propoganda. The money question does not actually come into it for me, loads of money will be made in this thing regardless of which side you are on, and yes the oil companies will still make billions because the oil will be used for purposes other than fueling vehicals, and the green types will make billions converting over to green tech.

To argue that man made global warming doesnt exist because it is basically a ruse for Al Gore to make money is illogical. This is basically one of the cornerstones of propaganda - argue against the man, not the issue.

The UN is no more corrupt than the US. Ill put Enron against the oil for food scandal any day. But the issue is whether the UN's 'corruption' has led the scientific community led by the UN to 'corrupt' conclusions - that is, the UN is endorsing global warmining as a subterfuge to funnel money from Rich countries to poor ones.

Sarah Palins views on Global warming may be dismissed because of her creationist and views on literal intpretation of the Bible. Global warming is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of science. Many posters on this board have provided scientific arguments against global warming(man-made) and while I dont necessarily agree with them they need to be discussed. I am afraid that it is Sarah Palin's views which are silly and which should be dismissed out of hand.

I understand the final point about facts versus propaganda although I would change the terminology to a question about interpretation of facts rather than propaganda. I repeat, for me, the crucial issue is the consequences of being wrong and the fact that we are arguing about pollution as if provides some sort of benefit on mankind. Yes, there is a dislocation but I would hope that we could figure out ways of minimizing the costs. Anything to insure that we cede a greener world to future generations.

 

[landscaper]

I don't have a problem with leaving a greener world to the next generation, I am in fact in favour of it in a big way.

I don't argue that global warming is a ruse to make Al Gore money, Al Gore is makinng money off of global warming like any good little capitalist who sees an oportunity.

Sarah Palins views on Global Warming may indeed be dismissed because of her lack of information on the subject as should anybody who provides an opinion on little or no information. My responce on that issue was due to a post that said because she believes man was created 6000 years ago her views on global warming must be ignored. There are a great many scientists on both sides of the question who are devote in their faith should their views be dismmissed because the are devote?

The interpretaion of the facts of the issue are at the heart of the debate, unfortunatly some groups on both sides have decided that the best use for the facts is as propoganda.

 

[landscaper]

I find your world view a bit naive, to say the least. You think the Nobel committee
and the UN is crooked, the arctic and antarctic ice is not melting, climate is not
changing. The scientists are wrong.

On the other hand you believe in the US government, who is 7 years into
a war because of non existing WMD. Or are they there somewhere?

I did not say the Nobel committee was crooked I said they can be influenced by events and people in their judgment, I used the Arafat example to show that.

The U.N. is corrupt in many areas that is a widely known fact, and yes I believe that the U.N. did infact endorse the Kyoto protocall as well as global warming in large part because it was largly viewed as a way to transfer money from North America to other countries. The example of Canada having to buy credits from China in order to meet our quota and having the money used for a coal fired electrical plant is well used.

I did not say that Arctic and antarctic ice was not melting it always melts and freezes in cycles it always has and as long as the earth has an orbital tilt it always will. They naming of Greenland was not a Remax marketing ploy, if you go back through recorded history you will find periods where wine grapes were grown in England there were settlements in greenland with farming and livestock, there were also periods when the Thames river froze solid bank to bank.

Tempurature if put on a graph vs date shows as a sort of sine wave it goes up and down what has happened for the last 40 years is the average emperature has gone up, given the latest solar forecasts the next 25 years could be cold ,very cold.

As far as believing in the U.S. government that is just putting words in my mouth, I don't believe I mentioned the U.S> govt except possibly in passing.

 

[fuji]

A lot of bafflegab there - but "Gasses at ground level are irrelevant."? You mean carbon dioxide and methane and all the others except ozone? (is ozone good or bad this year?)

You either need to learn a little more about how some gasses migrate to the upper atmosphere, or just leave this to the experts.

 

[landscaper]

You either need to learn a little more about how some gasses migrate to the upper atmosphere, or just leave this to the experts.

water vapour does not migrate to teh upper atmosphere?

 

[fuji]

Politicians and special interest groups use the parts of the science that furthers their specific goals, nothing more nothing less, and no argument is allowed.

I agree that generally characterizes the Republican attitude towards science, to a very large degree, and to a lesser degree the attitude of many politicians of all stripes.

The GOP has been particularly egregious in the respect though.

The refutation of the scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming shows abundantly that the science is not driving the discussion, the politics of the science is the driving force.

Depends which "refutation" you are talking about. The one I described above, which is spelled out in the articles and statements I provided you, is a scientific refutation.

The problem is the non-human theories made predictions that proved wrong and therefore the theories were invalidated. The consensus developed around human causation because those theories turned out to have predictive value.

In particular in a situation like this where you can't conduct a controlled experiment the gold standard is the ability of a theory to predict values which have not yet been measured. Theories which correctly predict new data are validated; theories which make wrong predictions are discarded.

The non-human causation theories were discarded because their predictions were wrong.

The statement that ground level emmisions don't count is stupid on its face.

I didn't say that ground level emissions don't matter. I said that gasses at ground level are irrelevant. They become relevant when they migrate elsewhere--but this is why, for example, water vapour isn't as relevant as you guys are making it out to be, because it doesn't migrate.

That's the trouble when you get a bunch of non-experts making up stuff and arguing about it: You don't know what you are talking about, and you say things which are patently ridiculous, but you take yourselves seriously.

You then use your nonsense babbling to say that you think the community of experts are wrong--THAT is stupid on its face.

 

[fuji]

water vapour does not migrate to teh upper atmosphere?

Not to the same height as other gasses. It forms clouds if you didn't know. Emissions of water vapour pale, too, versus the evaporation from the ocean.

What's your expertise in this area?