Global Warming is a hoax.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:00 AM']I'm sorry for assuming that you did not have any further training in science, that was wrong of me.  However, you are not debating like a scientist, you are debating like a politician.  You keep saying that "the facts" invalidate the possibility of global climate change, but have not provided us with any of the facts.  Iacobus and I have provided multiple links to scientific websites as well as quotes that you have not refuted.  So you say you're right and we're not, but you provide no proof.  How are we supposed to believe you?
[right][snapback]876231[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe the facts to be points that I have already made, and I think the strongest fact to be the history of the earths fluctuating temperatures.

Computer models are depend on programming, if the programming is flawed the computer model will be worthless. We would have to look at the program code before believing them... but that is not going to happen. We do not know everything that the programs take into account and how much validity that the program gives each piece of data.

I'm beginning to doubt the amount of gases released by volcanoes, but the bigger eruptions are without doubt worse than we can do in at least hundreds of years because there have been big eruptions that changed temperatures drastically in a few months. Something to also consider is that because of way search engines work, not being able to find something does not mean something is wrong. Search engines move the most popular results to the top of searches, global warming is a very popular topic so finding things to contradict the massmedia's global warming is not going to be an easy task.

I still believe global warming is a hoax because it has happened before and the world then went into a cooling phase.

It's nothing to be worried about because we are to put our faith in God and not worry (St. Matt 6:25-32).

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:04 AM']WWBNCGS?
What would Bill Nye the science guy say?
[right][snapback]876233[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[morostheos]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 12:02 PM']I believe the facts to be points that I have already made, and I think the strongest fact to be the history of the earths fluctuating temperatures.

Computer models are depend on programming, if the programming is flawed the computer model will be worthless. We would have to look at the program code before believing them... but that is not going to happen. We do not know everything that the programs take into account and how much validity that the program gives each piece of data.
[right][snapback]876257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I actually have looked in depth at the computer models used in the study of global climate change, and have found them to be convincing. In college one of the classes I took was "modelling environmental interactions." That was a couple years ago now and I don't remember the specifics of the model, but I do remember they definitely have cause to examine the situation more closely. No one says they know exactly what will happen and what is causing it, but there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.

Sure, the media claims "the sky is falling" and tries to spread fear, but that is not what convinces me that global climate change is something to be concerned about. The scientific facts are what concern me, and I believe changes to the way the world uses natural resources is going to have to happen sooner or later, so why not sooner?

[quote]Something to also consider is that because of way search engines work, not being able to find something does not mean something is wrong. Search engines move the most popular results to the top of searches, global warming is a very popular topic so finding things to contradict the massmedia's global warming is not going to be an easy task[/quote]

You just have to know how to look. Here's a link to an article abstract supporting your point that politics have clouded the issue considerably. [url="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0004-5608.00245;jsessionid=eO9fGEYM1cL8YfD57K?cookieSet=1&journalCode=anna"]http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...ournalCode=anna[/url]

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]If one inch of ice melts from Greenland's ice surface (up to a meter melts per year on the edges and there is melting on most of the surface, I am just saying one inch on the whole surface) 60,980,500,000,000,000 gallons of water will be added to the world's oceans. Think about that. Only six degrees and Greenland will be above 0 C almost all year.[/quote]

Can you substantiate this claim because, I'll be honest with you, that's absurd and it is comments like this that make people unsympathetic to your position. The number "60,980,500,000,000,000" is so large that I can't even write it out. If I were to drop the 60 and only have 980,500,000,000,000, it would be nine-hundred eighty TRILLION, five-hundred gallons of water. You would have to multiply that number by 62 to get the number that you quoted. Sorry, Iacobus, but that is simply not correct. There isn't even that much water on the planet.

[kamiller42]

In the Dallas, TX area, a majority of our winter has been been around a wonderful 70 degrees. If that's global warming, I'M ALL FOR IT!

Seriously, I think there are galactic and earthly forces at work that make human activity as significant as ant pile on the side of a driveway. One bad solar storm season on the sun has immense impact on weather patterns on earth, more so than anything mankind does.

Given that, I still think we should make efforts to keep the home we've been given to live in as clean as _reasonably_ possible. I can see God the father looking at us, his children, commanding us to keep our room clean.

[iheartjp2]

HA! Global warming, not up here in Ann Arbor MI!

wish it was though

[Iacobus]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 5 2006, 02:24 PM']Can you substantiate this claim because, I'll be honest with you, that's absurd and it is comments like this that make people unsympathetic to your position.  The number "60,980,500,000,000,000" is so large that I can't even write it out.  If I were to drop the 60 and only have 980,500,000,000,000, it would be nine-hundred eighty TRILLION, five-hundred gallons of water.  You would have to multiply that number by 62 to get the number that you quoted.  Sorry, Iacobus, but that is simply not correct.  There isn't even that much water on the planet.
[right][snapback]876463[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Greenland — Area: 2,175,600 SQ KM (848,484 SQ MI); estimated 341,600 SQ KM ice-free, 1,834,000 SQ KM ice-covered

So,

1,834,000 sq km*(0.3861 sq miles)=sq miles=708 100 sq miles

708100 sq miles*27,890,000 sq feet*(1/12 feet)=volume of ice (one inch thick)=1.646 × 10^12 cubic feet

1.646x10^12 cubic feet*7.481 gallons=1.231× 10^13 gallons

or

12,310,000,000,000 gallons (12 trillion, 310 billion gallons)

As you noted, my math was wrong. I don't have my intial work up, however, looking at the calulations I have in front of me now, it appears that I made a mistake when converting to square miles. Most likely, I failed to convert to sq miles properly. It looks like instead of a conversion fact of .3861 sq miles to one sq km, I converted in terms of linear space. I am not sure that is the mistake, I don't feel like running every possible number error (and even then it could just have been a mispunch on the calculator). However, I have proofed this set and put it up as part of the record so I have a saved copy of it.

And there are ax. 3.6x10^20 gallons of water on earth's surface.

Or

360,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons, or

Such a huge amount that the amount that you claimed exceeded the full amount of water on earth doesn't even amount to a reduction whatsoever.

3.6*10^20-6.1*10^16=3.6× 10^20

[ironmonk]

[quote][b]Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'[/b]
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.

The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.

Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

[url="http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r"]http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=...07-041447-2345r[/url][/quote]

[Iacobus]

And other scientists dispute the extent of that "Mini-ice age" and think that the reason people left Greenland wasn't because of weather but rather because the ships were sailing on different routes and it was now an out of the way place.

Strange also that google only has two hits total for Khabibullo Abdusamatov and neither of them are journals.

[Cow of Shame]

"She sipped her latte gracefully, unaware of the milk foam droplets building on her mustache, which was not the peachy-fine baby fuzz that Nordic girls might have, but a really dense, dark, hirsute lip-lining row of fur common to southern Mediterranean ladies nearing menopause, and winked at the obviously charmed Spaniard at the next table."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Feb 7 2006, 04:29 PM']And other scientists dispute the extent of that "Mini-ice age" and think that the reason people left Greenland wasn't because of weather but rather because the ships were sailing on different routes and it was now an out of the way place.

Strange also that google only has two hits total for Khabibullo Abdusamatov and neither of them are journals.
[right][snapback]879368[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There are actually many scientists who do not accept the politically-correct "party line" on global warming.
They tend to be shunned by the media and by the "scientific establishment."

Politics does play a large part in this stuff. Predicting eminent catasrophe gets press and funding in a way less catastrophic claims do not.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 7 2006, 10:36 PM']There are actually many scientists who do not accept the politically-correct "party line" on global warming.
They tend to be shunned by the media and by the "scientific establishment."

Politics does play a large part in this stuff.  Predicting eminent catasrophe gets press and funding in a way less catastrophic claims do not.
[right][snapback]879707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, I would say less catastrophic claims generally get more funding. Think about it - who is the major source of scientific funding? Goverment and industry. Neither are fans of the precautionary principle.

[Socrates]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 7 2006, 08:47 PM']Actually, I would say less catastrophic claims generally get more funding.  Think about it - who is the major source of scientific funding? Goverment and industry.  Neither are fans of the precautionary principle.
[right][snapback]879720[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's not exactly how it works.
If something is a severe crisis, requiring immediate action, it creates a much more urgent case for the government to give scientists more funds to research the problem.

Most scientists are liberal Democrats, and scientific lobbies tend to be liberal politically. They know how to drive up government grants. It's a hustle.

Also, the media thrives on disaster and catastrophe (as well as being largely left-leaning.)

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Feb 4 2006, 11:14 PM']Guns would still work. That would probably mean a republican run nation since the democrat party has forsaken the traditional left wing policy of violence for whining and movie making by vaguely Ewok shaped prevaricators.
[right][snapback]876101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i'm so glad you are posting again!

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='Feb 4 2006, 09:01 AM']Has anyone read State of Fear by Michael Crichton?
[right][snapback]875526[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yep - he makes some good points. I'd recommend it, along with [i]The Skeptical Environmentalist[/i], by Bjorn Lomborg.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 7 2006, 11:01 PM']Yep - he makes some good points.  I'd recommend it, along with [i]The Skeptical Environmentalist[/i], by Bjorn Lomborg.
[right][snapback]879745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I happen to own that book.

I still disagree about the funding though. If something seems to be a severe crisis, requiring immediate action, it creates a much more urgent case to accomplish research that minimizes the perceived crisis to show that drastic actions do not need to be taken.

[Socrates]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 7 2006, 09:19 PM']I happen to own that book. 

I still disagree about the funding though. If something seems to be a severe crisis, requiring immediate action, it creates a much more urgent case to accomplish research that minimizes the perceived crisis to show that drastic actions do not need to be taken.
[right][snapback]879784[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're not making any sense!

Would you be more likely to give money towards researching something you thought was an urgent crisis, or something that really wans't that big a deal?


This has been documented, by the way. Scientists who's findings on global warming didn't match the "politically correct" view have been refused publication in scientific journals, etc.

[morostheos]

Here's my point though. The Bush administration definitely agrees with you all that it is simply the liberal media that are saying the sky is falling and we're all going to die, when really that's simply not the case. Now don't you think, as president of the United States who also happens to have some very rich friends, that President Bush should be able to find some convincing scientists that agree with his administration's viewpoint to present reports to the EPA and the international comission on global climate change? The best anyone can say is "we don't know for sure."

I think the real question is, would you be more likely to give money towards researching something you thought would require major sacrifices on the part of the world economy or researching how those sacrifices might not be necessary?

I think it's pretty logical that one would try to make sure that there is no other explanation.

[JoeB]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 7 2006, 09:36 PM']There are actually many scientists who do not accept the politically-correct "party line" on global warming.
They tend to be shunned by the media and by the "scientific establishment."
[right][snapback]879707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A few years ago, a large campaign was mounted to get scientists who did not accept the 'global warming' theory in the US.

Another organization mounted a counter-ad, asking scientists name "Stephen" to sign on if they believed global warming was happening.

More scientists joined on to the second ad (all only named "Stephen") than joined the first one.

I think the situation gives a pretty clear view of how 'accepted' the theory is among the scientific community, which governs on consensus based on a preponderance of evidence.

Also, many studies are refused from journals, usually for bad, and sometimes biased methodology.

[ironmonk]

At one time most scientist believed the earth to be flat too.


it's been this hot before and it cooled.

it will cool.

then, it'll be this hot again, and it will cool.

there is nothing to make anyone logically think that the earth will just keep getting hotter. the earth will react to getting hotter and there are things in place to cool it off, then when it gets too cool, it'll heat back up... just as it always has throughout history.