History Of Environmentalist Warnings

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1529922' date='May 15 2008, 07:21 PM']I'm not here to argue for or against. In fact, I am removing myself officially from that capacity in this thread. I don't have the time to really put forth the kind of effort that deserves, anyway.

Instead, I want to ask if there is any way that we could restrict supporting information to primary sources only (ie: reports of experiments performed and charts), rather than appealing to authority and opinion of a person or organization?

The problem with discussing the topic of global warming is that everybody has been taught something different: including myself, all of those present in this forum, and the authorities quoted above. This is odd in science, because we normally think that science is about data, which is always the same for a [b]given instance[/b] of an experiment. But this topic is so controversial that people aren't taught the data, they're taught people's [b]opinions[/b] instead of the data. The problem with opinions is that every scientist has them, and well, they're very often wrong. So, when this happens, people hear all of this "science" tossed around when it's really just contradicting opinions, and when it's wrong, they pull a Pontius Pilate and ask, "What is Truth?". This is bad. Very bad. Moral relativism. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

Please, if you feel the need to discuss, keep it to the data. I'm not saying that the founder of Greenpeace is wrong or right in his statement; I just want to know what studies are there that back it up.

But most of all, have fun guys.[/quote]
I agree.

But for the record, the facts I stated at the beginning have no "belief" or "opinion" attached. They are accepted scientific facts. CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas which means it has the capacity to hold heat, which all the greenhouse gases combined are the reason we can even live on earth. The Earth does have a global carbon cycle and burning fossil fuels which are dead biomatter does produce CO2. In order to have any kind of discussion, the base facts have to be established and I challenge anyone who disagrees with these facts to provide evidence to the contrary. You won't be able to because these are just truths about the way the world works.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I haven't read any serious scientific stuff on this topic but I've watched some videos.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GaFrUFCVQg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GaFrUFCVQg[/url]

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1529992' date='May 15 2008, 10:21 PM']Please listen to all the other scientists and read all the other articles that the people making millions off the facade of "green" don't want you to know...

[url="http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html"]http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html[/url]
God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]

Ok. There looks to be some good stuff in there, along with more appeal to opinions. Of the two articles that I viewed in that long list (and it is quite long) this one is somewhat representative of what we're looking for:

[url="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjlNjc="]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZ...jQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=[/url]

Though it is a bit of a review of literature, it does do a good job of linking to where it got its information from. Most of those links appear to be studies, though one of them was a link to a blog by a guy that looked like he knew what he was talking about. But yes, you're getting to the idea: get away from people's opinions and start talking about the science. Get as close as possible to the primary sources: articles published in peer-reviewed journals, governmental studies, etc.

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1530001' date='May 15 2008, 10:30 PM']I agree.

But for the record, the facts I stated at the beginning have no "belief" or "opinion" attached. They are accepted scientific facts. CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas which means it has the capacity to hold heat, which all the greenhouse gases combined are the reason we can even live on earth. The Earth does have a global carbon cycle and burning fossil fuels which are dead biomatter does produce CO2. In order to have any kind of discussion, the base facts have to be established and [b]I challenge anyone who disagrees with these facts to provide evidence to the contrary[/b]. You won't be able to because these are just truths about the way the world works.[/quote]

And I challenge you to present the base facts based upon my criteria above. Primary sources only, if you please.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1530015' date='May 15 2008, 09:03 PM']Ok. There looks to be some good stuff in there, along with more appeal to opinions. Of the two articles that I viewed in that long list (and it is quite long) this one is somewhat representative of what we're looking for:

[url="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjNjc="]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZ...jQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=[/url]

Though it is a bit of a review of literature, it does do a good job of linking to where it got its information from. Most of those links appear to be studies, though one of them was a link to a blog by a guy that looked like he knew what he was talking about. But yes, you're getting to the idea: get away from people's opinions and start talking about the science. Get as close as possible to the primary sources: articles published in peer-reviewed journals, governmental studies, etc.
And I challenge you to present the base facts based upon my criteria above. Primary sources only, if you please.[/quote]
Typically, I would say that since what I stated were accepted facts of science, the burden of proof is on anyone denying that they are true, but I will attempt to meet your request.

[XIX]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1529009' date='May 15 2008, 12:08 AM']You are wrong. My science is sound... you need to brush up on your research skills and critical thinking. You need to research your sources and their sources... then look at their reasoning.

We have no effect on temp. The world is not going to keep warming. It will cool... then guess what... it'll warm again. The cycles appear to be about 80-100 years apart.

End of story.[/quote]

[XIX]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1529061' date='May 15 2008, 12:47 AM']Please, both of you, cite [b]scientific[/b] sources. This means reports in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[/quote]
Even those don't really work anymore. The politics behind the peer reviewed journals are pretty slanted.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='XIX' post='1530190' date='May 16 2008, 08:18 AM']Even those don't really work anymore. The politics behind the peer reviewed journals are pretty slanted.[/quote]

True, but are there any better options, apart from doing our own independent research and measurements? And then, who is to say that we are not introducing our own slant?

The best that we can hope for are raw hard data. Those data may be slanted one way or the other, but I posit that opinions based on slanted data are likely to be more slanted than the data itself. Opinions that are further based on these opinions may then accumulate even more slant, and so on. Thus, in order to have the least slant, we need to go as directly to the source as possible, and be as critical as possible about the methods used to obtain those data.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1530698' date='May 16 2008, 03:59 PM']True, but are there any better options, apart from doing our own independent research and measurements? And then, who is to say that we are not introducing our own slant?

The best that we can hope for are raw hard data. Those data may be slanted one way or the other, but I posit that opinions based on slanted data are likely to be more slanted than the data itself. Opinions that are further based on these opinions may then accumulate even more slant, and so on. Thus, in order to have the least slant, we need to go as directly to the source as possible, and be as critical as possible about the methods used to obtain those data.[/quote]
That being said, it's pretty hard to get a hold of scientific papers that have the data because you have to pay for most of them.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1530700' date='May 16 2008, 06:05 PM']That being said, it's pretty hard to get a hold of scientific papers that have the data because you have to pay for most of them.[/quote]

Couple of ideas:

* Check Google Scholar
* Check out a library. Many of them have databases that allow you to access these papers for free. Some libraries allow you to access these databases from you computer at home with only your library card number.
* Search for articles that reprint data from the source. These articles may be found in-print or online, and many of the in-print ones are also listed in those databases like EBSCOHost and LexisNexis.

But yeah, I know what you mean, there.

[dairygirl4u2c]

as is typical of ironmonk.... he needs to learn the facts. maybe he should have paid attention in science classes in elementary school.


[quote]detractors from MMGW man made global warming, who say it's not ssignificant, and only a hoax, usually rely on sun flares and volanoes.
if you don't know what i'm tlaking about, then don't debate me.


essential facts.
one is that studies have shown that the sun cycles have accounted for only a third of the warming that's occurred.
the other is that the volcano theorists have never cited sources.
the other is that they think 1.5 or so degrees is all that can really be attributed to man made gases.

i've never seen any sources cited for the volcano theory, but here's what i can find pointing that the volcano thing is a myth:
--------------
The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.

The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).
---------
i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?
----------


scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming
-------------
QUOTE
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999
QUOTE
It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the
twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than
do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater
influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of
changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse
gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.
----------------------




Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link:
-----------------
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): [url="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/."]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/.[/url]..
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): [url="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/."]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/.[/url]..
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): [url="http://www.grida.no/."]http://www.grida.no/.[/url]..
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): [url="http://books.nap.edu/."]http://books.nap.edu/.[/url]..
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - [url="http://www.socc.ca/."]http://www.socc.ca/.[/url]..
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): [url="http://epa.gov/."]http://epa.gov/.[/url]..
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - [url="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/."]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/.[/url]..
* American Geophysical Union (AGU): [url="http://www.agu.org/."]http://www.agu.org/.[/url]..
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/."]http://www.ametsoc.org/.[/url]..
* American Institute of Physics (AIP): [url="http://www.aip.org/."]http://www.aip.org/.[/url]..
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): [url="http://eo.ucar.edu/."]http://eo.ucar.edu/.[/url]..
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/."]http://www.ametsoc.org/.[/url]..
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): [url="http://www.cmos.ca/."]http://www.cmos.ca/.[/url]..
-------------------------

so, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation (while acknoledging that correlation doens't imply causation) between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW substantial, makes sense.

if the sun only acccounts for a third, that means the other third is coming from us, at least as far as i can tell from sources.
now, that two thirds might now be enough in itself. but, it's still the majority of hte heating, as far as i can see. so, if it's two thirds, i don't see how you could say that's not significant. to quibble on "significant" is just that, too, quibbling, so i hope no one does it, as it's not an argument worth fighting over.

qualifiers
-----------------
now, given that the flares will inevitably go down, the question is what to think of that warming that is occuring by us. when solar goes down, our warming wo't matter as much. in the mean time.... how much are we hurting the planet? this is the msot fundamental. it's hard to pin point specific levels of harm with specific temp increases.

what true is that we picked a very convenient time to be warming the planet any given solar cycle being up at the moment.

to say say our effect is surely causing bad effects is not wise.
to say global warming is a hoax is idiotic.

the question is what to do based on the uncertainty.
one thing i'm not sure of is why even if GW is so bad, if that's such a bad thing in the bigger picture. increased crop cycles etc. warmer etc. prob unintended side effects is what we have to worry about. i mean, manhattan would get flooded some, up to the WTC even, but is that so bad overall? pretty expensive an all but i don't know.
---------[/quote]
even though i make those qualifications, i still maintain my opening premise.
prove me wrong.

learn the facts, not just spewing conservative propaganda and being a conservative robot

not someone who believes the conservative party of today almost entirely encapsulates God's platform,,, and all the platforms of the past have just been man made and you think you got lucky with God's party today by chance.... the reality and what is more probable is that you are just being a conservative robot.

Edited May 17, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]FACTS:
• Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
o Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.
• Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output.
• Natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.[/quote]

as to this weakest attempt at reasoning....
yes, a lot of greenhouse gas is natural. but, if there's a signifiant increase by humans, then it doesn't matter what happens naturally, and our out put is significant.

no one says greenhouse gases are all bad. maybe you need to take logic lessons.

the sun's output thing, has been refuted. the orbital thing has not be stated adequately with any facts.

the natural wetlands things is just like hte point about there being mostly natural greenhouse gases.

maybe you should seek someone to teach you lessons in logic and science now, even though you are no longer in school.

God Bless,
ironmonk... i mean dairygirl

Edited May 17, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

(actually, i am aware that iron did not say MMGW is a hoax in this thread, and i note that nuance.... and if he doesn't hold it to be in fact a hoax, then that's that and cool and i'll take his evidence as simply support for his proposition, not trying to say it's irrefutable. i just couldn't resist the chance to act like ironmonk jumping to conclusions and being an @$$hole... plus he's said that it's a hoax, and repeatedly refused, by silence on the matter, to qualify whether he means it's in fact a hoax or just possibly or even to him probably.... i can't stand being like him too much, that's why i make this disclaimer)

Edited May 17, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1530004' date='May 15 2008, 09:37 PM']I haven't read any serious scientific stuff on this topic but I've watched some videos.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GaFrUFCVQg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GaFrUFCVQg[/url][/quote]


HERESY!!!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1530906' date='May 16 2008, 08:34 PM']HERESY!!![/quote]

[Adrestia]

[quote name='XIX' post='1530190' date='May 16 2008, 07:18 AM']Even those don't really work anymore. The politics behind the peer reviewed journals are pretty slanted.[/quote]pretty slanted... I'd call it closer to absolutely ridiculous. They will publish findings that are contradictory to current conventional wisdom (cw), but only if the data is [b]rock[/b] solid. It is much easier to publish soft data that appears to support current cw. One problem is that it is difficult to find enough money to disprove current cw... rock solid data costs a lot more than soft data. Some scientists are too afraid to risk their careers and livelihood.