A warmer Arctic? Blame Mother Nature

[kengs333]

So you are going to deny that via satallite, we see the massive difference?

Face it, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I've come across a fair share of his type and it's always the same. Trying to have a reasoned debate with them is an exercise in futility.

[Riverwind]

So you are going to deny that via satallite, we see the massive difference? 1979 - wow - that was eons ago - even if what you say is true...29 years is still not enough to call it natural climactic evolution

The data does not lie. The ice caps in antarctica are at record levels. Denying it is simply silly.

Face it, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Anyone who thinks that a 1 degC rise in temperatures is a concern is completely clueless. Edited January 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

The data does not lie. The ice caps in antarctica are at record levels. Denying it is simply silly.

Anyone who thinks that a 1 degC rise in temperatures is a concern is completely clueless.

So great expanses of open water and skelatal white bears staggering about is a good thing? I see - even if it was totally true and the arctic was disappearing - as long as you could secretly blow a dube in the SUV behind your wifes back and go cruising listening to Zepplin tunes - all is fine in the world. The point is - I have seen the land dry out in my time on the planet - the meadows are gone - the water smells - and someone is getting rich shiting in my house..called earth - pull up your pants and use the bathroom like a human....what a disgrace -we have an industrial elite that are not even potty trained!

[Riverwind]

So great expanses of open water and skelatal white bears staggering about is a good thing?

The claim that polar bears are at risk is completely false:

Gore says a scientific study shows that polar bears are being killed swimming long distances to find ice that has melted away because of "global warming." They are not. The study, by Monnett & Gleason (2005), mentioned just four dead bears. They had died in an exceptional storm, with high winds and waves in the Beaufort Sea. The amount of sea ice in the Beaufort Sea has grown over the past 30 years. A report for the World Wide Fund for Nature shows that polar bears, which are warm-blooded, have grown in numbers where temperature has increased, and have become fewer where temperature has fallen. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago, and survived the last interglacial period, when global temperature was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and there was probably no Arctic ice-cap at all. The real threat to polar bears is not "global warming" but hunting. In 1940, there were just 5,000 polar bears worldwide. Now that hunting is controlled, there are 25,000.

Source: http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=446

The NWP was open water in 1944:

The St. Roch returned to Vancouver by a more northerly route, through LANCASTER SOUND and Barrow Strait, in only 86 days (22 July-16 Oct 1944). This voyage made it the first vessel to negotiate the passage both ways. The exploits of the St. Roch strengthened Canadian ARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY.

Source: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=A1ARTA0007114 Edited January 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[White Doors]

Face it, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I've come across a fair share of his type and it's always the same. Trying to have a reasoned debate with them is an exercise in futility.

He debated circles around you, provided links to back up his claims and in general demonstrated a much wider understanding of the issues than you.

Your retort?

"Nonsense!"

or

'It's virtually indisputable'

then 'where did I say it wasn't disputable?'

then 'they are cranks'

etc etc etc.

You got pwned as the kids say.

Good job Riverwind

[Wilber]

No, actually it was a theory until 9/11 seemed to confirm that this was possible.

9/11 only had a major effect on reducing air travel to and from the US and within US airspace for a few days. The amount of air traffic over the US and western Europe is far out of proportion to the rest of the world and while it may have had an effect on local temperature fluctuations (debatable) to say it has a global effect on warming would be a real stretch at this point. Even those who believe it is possible don't know whether it would have a positive or negative effect.

[kengs333]

I suggest you read though some of the science presented on this site. It has a lot of information that supports the claim that modest warming is not unusual, not particularily dangerous and probably beneficial on the whole.

LOL

[kengs333]

He debated circles around you, provided links to back up his claims and in general demonstrated a much wider understanding of the issues than you.

Debated circles around me? Hardly. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Riverwind]

Debated circles around me? Hardly. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

I have run into a lot of people that disgree with me on this forum. But you are the first who thinks that declaring that "you're wrong" constitutes a counter argument. I am curious about your motivation. What do you hope to accomplish by making these silly unsupported statements? Do you think that you are a towering authority figure and that other readers will accept your declarations simply because you said it? Or are you simply trying to cover up the fact that you have no counter argument because your really don't know much about the topic? Edited January 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Debated circles around me? Hardly. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Interesting. I've just read ALL your posts in this thread and I am struck by your repeated use of the word "consensus" as some sort of scientific proof.

What has consensus got to do with science as a proof? A fact is or is not. It doesn't matter how many people believe it. There have been times when there was a consensus about the Earth being flat, or being the centre of the universe, and many others. Perhaps you might want to tell it to Galileo.

I would be surprised to hear ANY true scientist make the claim that because he has a "consensus" behind him his premises must be true. Rather, his evidence and reasoning would speak for themselves.

It is very easy to fabricate a "consensus". Tell a scientist that if he denies man-made climate change he will lose his funding and you'll see him sign up very quickly. He likely has kids to feed. Or consider the old "4 out of 5 doctors prefer Aspirin" example. You might have to weed through thousands of doctors to get that 4 but once you do you simply take just one of those thousands to put with your 4 and you can truthfully make the claim.

This concept of scientific "consensus" is simply politics, not science. It's being used to get your opposition to shut up, so you no longer have to defend your argument.

Frankly, the very idea of consensus as some sort of proof strikes me as far more of a religious thing. "You cannot deny our faith because so many of us believe it!"

We all know what billions of flies eat but that's not a good reason to share their tastes...

Edited January 16, 2008 by Wild Bill

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry,

Just about everyone who knows anything about climate change with read the following sentence:

"a prestigious scientific journal that in the past has shown a decided hostility to studies that contradict the climate change hysteria"

and likely go no further. That kind of nonsense is old hat and it just indicates that the writer is ignorant and driven by a neocon agenda. The only purpose that people like that serve is to delude right-wing business types that the reality of humanity's impact on the environment is all a myth so they can ruthlessly go about polluting and expoliting the earth without any guilt.

I'm willing to listen to anyone's informed opinion's about climate change, but right-wing hack journalists really have no place in the debate.

Gee - for someone concerned about the "science" you sure sound like you're attacking ad hominem here.

Please read the sentence you quoted again. If you're going to attack a source, at least attack the cited source: Nature magazine.

Yours, and other econazis, willingness to ignore any POSSIBLE evidence to your already decided upon (and bordering on religious) conclusion actually demonstrates an obvious and intentional ignoring of science or balance in favor of your opinion or "consensus" (read: group of scientists not willing to give up their big fat research funding").

All good, balanced objective science considers a body of evidence and makes statements based upon what has been learned so far. There are plenty of examples of scientific things we thought we knew but ended up modifying our conclusions later on when we had learned and observed more evidence.

What good, balanced and objective science doesn't do is draw a conclusion based upon some evidence, then make a concerted effort to silence, chastize and crush any new science that comes along in order to prove to the world how correct the original conclusion was. That's not called science.

It's called religion.

Edited January 16, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Black Dog]

What we should be focusing on is how we know alot of emissions and an increasing rate of resource consumption will hurt our own sustainability and general health, not some apocalyptic scenario which effects may or may not be seen hundreds of years from now.

That's a pretty reasonable stance to take. Protecting the environment is in and of itself a worthwhile goal. The other problem I see is that anytime some claim made based on climate change is shown toe wrong or at least doubted, it discredits the whole environmental movement. Which is what people like Gunter and others of his ilk want.

But it is meeting resistance from people because Al Gore and the like are using fear tactics that people see through, and then offering some fancy "green" products for us to buy then everything will be ok. Their is to much focus on this over the countless ways overconsumption and such is hurting us right now.

I disagree to some extent that the climate change issue is distracting from other concerns. I think it's the thin edge of the wedge of greater awareness of sustainable environmental practices: the hook, if you will. It's a shame people need to be told the ice caps are melting and baby bears are dying to act, but if that's what it takes, so be it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

That's a pretty reasonable stance to take. Protecting the environment is in and of itself a worthwhile goal. The other problem I see is that anytime some claim made based on climate change is shown toe wrong or at least doubted, it discredits the whole environmental movement. Which is what people like Gunter and others of his ilk want.

I disagree to some extent that the climate change issue is distracting from other concerns. I think it's the thin edge of the wedge of greater awareness of sustainable environmental practices: the hook, if you will. It's a shame people need to be told the ice caps are melting and baby bears are dying to act, but if that's what it takes, so be it.

The contradiction in this post is pure comedy.

In one paragraph you're getting in a huff about how gunter and "others of his ilk" cite specific inaccurate environmental claims to discredit the whole movement..

And in the very next paragraph you argue that making specific inaccurate claims is necessary to perpetuate said movement.

Classic.

Edited January 16, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Black Dog]

In one paragraph you're getting in a huff about how gunter and "others of his ilk" cite specific inaccurate environmental claims to discredit the whole movement..

And in the very next paragraph you argue that making specific inaccurate claims is necessary to perpetuate said movement.

Classic.

I should have guessed that you'd miss the point, what with your noted deficiencies in reading comprehension.

I wasn't referring to inaccurate claims in the second paragraph.

[Riverwind]

I disagree to some extent that the climate change issue is distracting from other concerns. I think it's the thin edge of the wedge of greater awareness of sustainable environmental practices: the hook, if you will. It's a shame people need to be told the ice caps are melting and baby bears are dying to act, but if that's what it takes, so be it.

I agree that our society needs to learn to be more environmentally sustainable, however, I feel the single minded obsession with CO2 will undermine that objective in the long run because it makes people think that all they have to do is reduce carbon when true sustainability requires a more wholistic approach. It also will undermine the credibility of the environmental movement because it will eventually be exposed as frauds.

[kengs333]

Gee - for someone concerned about the "science" you sure sound like you're attacking ad hominem here.

...

What good, balanced and objective science doesn't do is draw a conclusion based upon some evidence, then make a concerted effort to silence, chastize and crush any new science that comes along in order to prove to the world how correct the original conclusion was. That's not called science.

It's called religion.

I don't see where there was a personal attack, but whatever the case, the fact remains that the great majority of peer reviewed research is suggesting that there is a significant change in the climate, that the ultimate source looks to be human activity. I personally don't think that "good, balanced and objective science" comes from institutes that receive funding from the oil and gas industry, among other corporate sources...

[JerrySeinfeld]

I don't see where there was a personal attack, but whatever the case, the fact remains that the great majority of peer reviewed research is suggesting that there is a significant change in the climate, that the ultimate source looks to be human activity. I personally don't think that "good, balanced and objective science" comes from institutes that receive funding from the oil and gas industry, among other corporate sources...

Actually, to be perfectly frank - science is science. Truth doesn't care where it gets money from.

The amount of research funding for "climate research" has gone from $200 million to $2 billion in the past 10 years. If you're gonna be skeptical about financial motivation, at least be balanced enough to admit that the financial motivation is far greater on the "man-made-climate-change" side of the equation as there are far more dollars, attention and praise available there.

Not to mention ostracizing and shunning of very credible scientists who don't toe the line. That type of behavior reminds me of...um - what happebned to galileo when he tried to throw truth up into the face of "consensus".

I think we know who the real flat-earthers are when it comes to "openness to thought"

Edited January 17, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[buffycat]

... the fact remains that the great majority of peer reviewed research is suggesting that there is a significant change in the climate...

Kengs, this is where you should have stopped.

No one is suggesting that there isn't climate change occuring - that is a natural event.

What is uncertain is the degree to which human activity is contributing. There is no consensus about it - even amongst some of the hard core AGW supporters.

There are far too many factors which influence climate and shorter weather phenomena to sum it all up and blame it solely on Carbon emissions. That is a FACT. Solar influences, orbital forcing, continental alignments, biomass influences - to name a few.

To blame all the weather woes on CO2 emissions is to be niave at the very least.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Kengs, this is where you should have stopped.

No one is suggesting that there isn't climate change occuring - that is a natural event.

What is uncertain is the degree to which human activity is contributing. There is no consensus about it - even amongst some of the hard core AGW supporters.

There are far too many factors which influence climate and shorter weather phenomena to sum it all up and blame it solely on Carbon emissions. That is a FACT. Solar influences, orbital forcing, continental alignments, biomass influences - to name a few.

To blame all the weather woes on CO2 emissions is to be niave at the very least.

Exactly, Buffy.

When politicians and alarmists start running around banging the "the scince is settled" drum, I don't think they realize how

1. Religious

2. Close minded

they sound. And as well, with something as massively complex as climate - for which there is very scant hard provable data (what? a few ice core samples? tree rings? come on people). - it's unbelievable that any scientist with any self-respect would fall entirely into one camp or the other. Especially given that science is always advanced by disproving theories - not by proving them to an absolute degree. Anywone who understands what science actually is knows this to be true - which makes it even more fantastic that so many scientists have shamelessly habbled up to slurp from the funding trough - or allowed themselves to be silenced by IPCC (who routinely kicks out, ostracizes or censors member scientists who point out contradictory scientific data).

These eco-kooks are really starting to look like flat-earthers all over again - denying data, squashing truth and shunning dissenters.

I think the founder of Greenpeace said it best when he mentioned this: when he left greepeace they were talking about trying to BAN chlorine. He piped up at a meeting stating (paraphrased) "guys - Chlorine is an element in the periodic table - I don't think it's in our jurisdiction to ban a whole element"

Another thing the founder of greenpeace mentioned is that, after the Berlin wall fell, he found the organization was starting to attract "activists" who, in a very clever way, began to use environmental language to cloak their true agendas against capitalism etc.

If you think about global warming, it's the perfect anti-USA, anti-capitalism, anti-BUSH (think of Al Gore here) agenda - and you can guilt the general public into it without ever bringing up "politics".

It's so obvious.