AGW is a lie

[juvenissun]

Perhaps. One thing is really certain, we don't know until we try.


Well yeah, people are going to live where livelihood is. Coastal areas are amongst those places. Personally, I don't see how you can blame them. Especially those in underdeveloped countries. Personally I think we have a duty towards those people, but I know opinions on that differ (not implying you don't care, but knowing others don't).

People tends to behave like insects, flying toward fire for short term benefit. If I were governor of some sort, I will spend A LOT of money to educate, even to scare people about the dangers of living in the coastal area regards to global warming. And if possible, I will push the legislation of banning or discouraging industrial development along coastal area. There IS plenty of land on the back of coastal plain which is roomy enough for any long term development.

Again, my point is: The society needs to prepare for the strike of rare natural disasters. We can NOT fight them. We can only run away from them.

 

[Greatcloud]

Southern Hemisphere ’s ice cover now is at the same level as last June, i.e., a level seen during the last winter in the Southern Hemisphere...two more millions square kilometers of ice now compared to December 2006....Icecap note: In the Northern Hemisphere, the ice and snow cover have recovered to within 1% (one snowstorm) of normal-2008

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf

 

[Greatcloud]

 

[[serious]]

Southern Hemisphere ’s ice cover now is at the same level as last June, i.e., a level seen during the last winter in the Southern Hemisphere...two more millions square kilometers of ice now compared to December 2006....Icecap note: In the Northern Hemisphere, the ice and snow cover have recovered to within 1% (one snowstorm) of normal-2008

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf

Because the south pole ice is on land, it tends to melt slower. It's the same concept as thawing a turkey. Toss it on a cutting board, it will thaw slow. Toss it in a sink full of water, it will thaw fast. Good thing too. If the land ice of the south pole was melting as fast as the northern ice pack, we would be seeing major flooding.

As far as comparing the amount of snow from one month to another, that's just silly. I could point to specific Aprils in the north east where there was lots more snow than specific Januaries. The fact that weather varies from one day to the next is not surprising.

As far as snow pack in July being similar to the annual average, it generally is. December as well. Northern sea ice peaks around May and hits it's minimum around September.

These are all things that even a cursory fact checking should have turned up for you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Southern Hemisphere ’s ice cover now is at the same level as last June, i.e., a level seen during the last winter in the Southern Hemisphere...two more millions square kilometers of ice now compared to December 2006....Icecap note: In the Northern Hemisphere, the ice and snow cover have recovered to within 1% (one snowstorm) of normal-2008

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf

Well,

Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss
01.23.08

PASADENA, Calif. - Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.

Antarctic ice loss between 1996 and 2006, overlaid on a Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) mosaic image of Antarctica. The colors indicate the speed of the ice loss. Purple/red is fast. Green is slow. Image credit: NASA (SOURCE)

Ice loss from Antarctica accelerating.
The Australian January 2008

GLOBAL warming has caused annual ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet to surge by 75 per cent in a decade, according to the most detailed survey ever made of the white continent's coastal glaciers.

In 2006, accelerating glaciers spewed an estimated 192 billion tonnes of Antarctic ice into the sea, scientists calculate. (SOURCE)

 

[thaumaturgy]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Alarmist beware the word is out

I have one other problem: why do people insist on calling things like anthropogenic global warming "lies"?

Do you honestly think the thousands and thousands of honest hard-working scientists are lying to you?

Remember, when someone lies they are telling you something they know is false but telling you it is true. A lie has intent that carries along with it.

If you accuse someone of lying you are saying that they are intentionally misleading you. NOT that you think they are mistaken or they have done their science wrong, but that they are intentionally misleading you by telling you something they know to be wrong.

I don't get it? I'm an atheist and even I have a tough time calling someone a liar because there's a chance they are simply mistaken. And even though I don't believe the 10 commandments are divinely inspired, I still think it's a durn good idea to not bear false witness against someone.

I don't think religious people are liars when they tell me they believe in God. I think they may be mistaken, but that's just my opinion. I perceive the data differently than they do.

But to say "AGW is a Lie" as the OP title states, is to leave little wiggle room that perhaps the poster simply disagrees with the mass of science on the topic.

(And I know that many global warming detractors feel it is some "industry" that scientists are getting in on to make $$$ off the fear, but so far I've seen no real evidence of such a super-duper conspiracy. All I see is a ton of data that indicates AGW is real and its collected by honest, hard-working scientists, most of whom are not particularly rich.)

 

[Greatcloud]

As far as lies there is the hockey stick graph Michael Mann & co and Mana Loa and to top it off Al Gores pack of lies and distorations the movie.

Yes I think thousands of scientists are trying to turn lead into gold,they have a bias they labor under. Simply put THEY ARE NOT OBJECTIVE. And they see nothing wrong with it. That is lying.

 

[Psudopod]

I want to know who's going to benefit from the "global warming lie." There are far higher paying jobs that climate scientist, and climate science has been funded long before anyone proposed global warming. Any politicuian proposing greentaxs, fuel duties and measures to cut down on people wasting power committing polical suicide if their opponent isn't saying the same thing.

So why this big global conpiracy?

 

[Psudopod]

Also Al Gore /= climate scientist. Al Gore = politician. I've not seen the film, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was full of hyperbole.

 

[Psudopod]

.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As far as lies there is the hockey stick graph Michael Mann & co and Mana Loa and to top it off Al Gores pack of lies and distorations the movie.

"pack of lies"? Al Gore? Do you think scientists care one whit what Al Gore says? Sorry, but you need to get out more. I live down the road from a major Oceanographic Institution and my wife works there and we've gone to several presentations by noted climate experts and scientists knowledgable in this field, and you know, Al Gore doesn't have any "peer reviewed" articles for discussion.

Al Gore is the messenger, he didn't write the message. He makes it so that people who can't follow the science can understand what is going on in the science circles. The scientists are NOT DOING AL GORE'S WORK.

"Mana Loa"? I'm assuming you are blathering about some critique of Keeling's work at Mauna Loa? (my wife has actually gotten to see the medal Keeling won for his work on the Curve!) Mauna Loa, You're kidding right? Why can't you state something substantive about the Keeling Curve (in case you didn't know it was called that)?

I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with the history of global climate change research? Back in the 1950's Roger Revelle along with Hans Seuss noted and formulated the "buffer factor" which explains the relationship between how much CO2 the ocean can absorb and how much it has currently in it. Now Revelle's 1957 paper with Seuss is considered the opening point of the global warming research. That's over 50 years ago. Revelle was probably not a climate alarmist, and was probably only making an academic claim when he stated: "Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future."

Revelle was merely noting how the ocean took up CO2 from the atmosphere and found the chemistry inherent in this system would put a natural "braking" on this process. This was a time when it was known that we were responsible for pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the ocean and it was assumed (wrongly) that the ocean would absorb it all no problem. The science produced more questions to be answered.

"But at the outset[of atmospheric CO2 research], nobody thought the problem was particularly pressing. Early studies of CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] in the atmosphere were strictly a matter of satisfying general scientific curiosity, and their funding came from the usual sources for university research. An individual would work on CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] for a few months, supported on his salary as a professor, with perhaps a little help from a government grant awarded mainly for other matters.(SOURCE)

Revelle was largely responsible for funding Keeling's research. Remember, these folks weren't out for some "agenda" at the time as no agenda existed. They were merely exploring the world to find out more about how the ocean worked and how the climate worked.

In case you're interested in learning more about Revelle et al. HERE's an interesting link.

Please stop calling this avenue of investigation a lie. I am so desperately tired of people calling things they disagree with lies. It's irrational and shows sloppy thinking.

Yes I think thousands of scientists are trying to turn lead into gold,they have a bias they labor under. Simply put THEY ARE NOT OBJECTIVE. And they see nothing wrong with it. That is lying.

So now when you think someone is not being objective you think they are lying?

You really, really need to pick up a dictionary once in a while.

 

[LittleNipper]

"pack of lies"? Al Gore? Do you think scientists care one whit what Al Gore says? Sorry, but you need to get out more. I live down the road from a major Oceanographic Institution and my wife works there and we've gone to several presentations by noted climate experts and scientists knowledgable in this field, and you know, Al Gore doesn't have any "peer reviewed" articles for discussion.

Al Gore is the messenger, he didn't write the message. He makes it so that people who can't follow the science can understand what is going on in the science circles. The scientists are NOT DOING AL GORE'S WORK.

"Mana Loa"? I'm assuming you are blathering about some critique of Keeling's work at Mauna Loa? (my wife has actually gotten to see the medal Keeling won for his work on the Curve!) Mauna Loa, You're kidding right? Why can't you state something substantive about the Keeling Curve (in case you didn't know it was called that)?

I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with the history of global climate change research? Back in the 1950's Roger Revelle along with Hans Seuss noted and formulated the "buffer factor" which explains the relationship between how much CO2 the ocean can absorb and how much it has currently in it. Now Revelle's 1957 paper with Seuss is considered the opening point of the global warming research. That's over 50 years ago. Revelle was probably not a climate alarmist, and was probably only making an academic claim when he stated: "Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future."

Revelle was merely noting how the ocean took up CO2 from the atmosphere and found the chemistry inherent in this system would put a natural "braking" on this process. This was a time when it was known that we were responsible for pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the ocean and it was assumed (wrongly) that the ocean would absorb it all no problem. The science produced more questions to be answered.



Revelle was largely responsible for funding Keeling's research. Remember, these folks weren't out for some "agenda" at the time as no agenda existed. They were merely exploring the world to find out more about how the ocean worked and how the climate worked.

In case you're interested in learning more about Revelle et al. HERE's an interesting link.

Please stop calling this avenue of investigation a lie. I am so desperately tired of people calling things they disagree with lies. It's irrational and shows sloppy thinking.



So now when you think someone is not being objective you think they are lying?

You really, really need to pick up a dictionary once in a while.

So exactly what will be done to solve all the environmental issues? This is where I see GOD proving HE exists. If scientists feel that they can fix the world's environmental problems do you believe they can?

 

[Tomk80]

So exactly what will be done to solve all the environmental issues? This is where I see GOD proving HE exists. If scientists feel that they can fix the world's environmental problems do you believe they can?

Do scientists make the claim they can fix the world's environmental problems?

I think people can, with the help of scientifically proven methods. But that is just my optimism speaking. Scientists can find out where the problem is and what methods work. When all's said and done, we need to get out and do something about it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[atomweaver]

Do scientists make the claim they can fix the world's environmental problems?

I think people can, with the help of scientifically proven methods. But that is just my optimism speaking. Scientists can find out where the problem is and what methods work. When all's said and done, we need to get out and do something about it.

Bolded & QFT.

Its a shame it seems that so many would rather sit around and wait for their preferred deity to get directly involved and sort things out... Reminds me of the "God will save me" boat jokes.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So exactly what will be done to solve all the environmental issues? This is where I see GOD proving HE exists. If scientists feel that they can fix the world's environmental problems do you believe they can?

So may I ask you; is your conception of God OK with us destroying the planet through our own choices, and when we are told how we are destroying the planet, is God OK with us just hoping he saves us from ourselves? Or do you think your God would want us to take some responsibility and do our level best to make things better?

Your call. I know what I am voting for.

 

[Tomk80]

Bolded & QFT.

Its a shame it seems that so many would rather sit around and wait for their preferred deity to get directly involved and sort things out... Reminds me of the "God will save me" boat jokes.

The attitude portrayed by Littlenipper, and in fact by many (Christian) Americans as well as the current US government seems to me a very unamerican one, because it is so extremely fatalistic. Let the world go to hell, their isn't anything we can do about it so why even try.

When I was in America, the thing that I found so uplifting was the attitude to not stand around moaning and thinking you cannot do it, but just try and see whether it works. Whereas the European one I often encountered was why try, you know it'll fail anyway. Where is this attitude when it comes to environmental policy? Why is the environmental policy in the USA so unamerican?

 

[juvenissun]

Do scientists make the claim they can fix the world's environmental problems?

I think people can, with the help of scientifically proven methods. But that is just my optimism speaking. Scientists can find out where the problem is and what methods work. When all's said and done, we need to get out and do something about it.

What they need to do is to convince people to get out of the potential hazardous region, but not trying to conquer the nature.

For example, tell people to get out of the flood plain, but not to "prevent" the flood.

 

[Tomk80]

What they need to do is to convince people to get out of the potential hazardous region, but not trying to conquer the nature.

For example, tell people to get out of the flood plain, but not to "prevent" the flood.

Which is nice if it is possible. For many people, it is not.

 

[juvenissun]

The attitude portrayed by Littlenipper, and in fact by many (Christian) Americans as well as the current US government seems to me a very unamerican one, because it is so extremely fatalistic. Let the world go to hell, their isn't anything we can do about it so why even try.

When I was in America, the thing that I found so uplifting was the attitude to not stand around moaning and thinking you cannot do it, but just try and see whether it works. Whereas the European one I often encountered was why try, you know it'll fail anyway. Where is this attitude when it comes to environmental policy? Why is the environmental policy in the USA so unamerican?

Try to understand and to USE the natural process, is smart, and is the responsibility of scientist.

Try to STOP or to CHANGE the natural process, is however, STUPID.

For example, even if we could "dissolve" a hurricane, we better not to do it.