Climate Change. Yes the science is settled.

by mavie 137 Replies latest social current

• 

  DanTheMan

  Concern peaked in the early 1970s [...] Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference [5] ). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.

  This makes the same basic point that the link that I provided did, which you characterized as Watchtower-style, "we never said that" new light. ??
• 

  coffee_black

  Sorry Dan, I didn't see this earlier.

  And I really don't appreciate your caricaturizing my position by referring to me as an apologist.

  a·pol·o·gist / ?'p?l?d??st / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation [ uh-pol-uh-jist ] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

  –noun

  1.	a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

  Sorry...didn't mean to offend you.... I was using it in the above context... thought it was accurate. I'll use a different word going forward. Defender, perhaps? Coffee
• 

  coffee_black

  That's only 1 of the articles...there are many more listed. Some are more balanced (by that I mean non alarmist) than others. The overall perception I had at the time (70s) was one of urgency... similar to apocolyptical rhetoric from the borg. I didn't leave any articles out... I copied the entire section....that way you get a more complete picture...and it would have been dishonest for me to leave out stuff that disagrees with my point of view..

  You said in your earlier post that the predictions of an impending ice age have nothing to do with GW. It has everything to do with the GW issue. It shows a history of the scientific research... as new research is done, changes are made...and rightly so. The problem lies when you take any of this as gospel....at any given time. As the Professor said it is a science in its infancy. To assume that anyone has all the answers in foolishness. To allow oneself to be bamboozled by political charletans who are seeking to profit from this hysteria is sad.

  Coffee
• 

  outnfree

  "We don't use oil because it's "the best" - we use it because it is entrenched. It is convenient. It is status quo."
  
  I believe this to be true. I am torn every day of my Michigan existence because I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid when the U.S. auto industry--i.e., my region's employer--is hurting. I would LOVE to feel environmentally responsible driving an American-made car. (Yes, some Hondas are built by Americans, but the Civic Hybrid is assembled in Japan. :( ) The only U.S.-built hybrid is the crossover Ford Escape SUV which is larger than I need and only gets 36/31 mpg versus the Civic's 49/51 mpg EPA rating. Of course, I could switch to a Toyota Prius.... (j/k).
  
  Why is it that GM and Chrysler have not yet developed at least one hybrid vehicle for commercial application? How much less would the nation's "carbon footprint" be if every vehicle in America was either a bio-diesel hybrid or an electric/gas hybrid? For starters? What is the hold-up? And I am asking sincerely... What are the drawbacks to having 100% hybrid fleets? I'm sure that, at some point, the extra weight needed for a fuel tank and battery cell large enough to power a vehicle of a certain tonnage renders the fuel economy gains moot. But what is that point? And why aren't all lighter-weight vehicles being engineered as hybrids? This would tell our children that we acknowledge that we need to reduce man-made pollutants.
  
  I realize that I have just taken this thread off-topic. Sorry for that.
  
  I personally do NOT believe the science is settled as far as MAN being responsible for global warming. I DO believe that global warming is occurring as a natural part of earth's weather patterns. I also believe that air pollution is having ill effects on human and planetary health. So let's be prudent and do what we can to reduce our share in polluting our planet with our everyday CHOICES. We are free, after all, to CHOOSE what we do AND what we believe.
• 

  DanTheMan

  That's only 1 of the articles...there are many more listed. Some are more balanced (by that I mean non alarmist) than others. The overall perception I had at the time (70s) was one of urgency... similar to apocolyptical rhetoric from the borg. I didn't leave any articles out... I copied the entire section....that way you get a more complete picture...and it would have been dishonest for me to leave out stuff that disagrees with my point of view..

  I don't se any alarmism in what you quoted other than Carl Sagan's predictions (unfortunate), and the Newsweek article, the latter again being from the popular press.

  You said in your earlier post that the predictions of an impending ice age have nothing to do with GW. It has everything to do with the GW issue.

  You keep missing my point, that is, statements such as this one that you made earlier:

  Some of the same scientists who tout global warming today had many convinced in the 70s that we were about to enter an ice age.

  Do not at all reflect the nuances of what was predicted in the 1970's.

  It shows a history of the scientific research... as new research is done, changes are made...and rightly so. The problem lies when you take any of this as gospel....at any given time. As the Professor said it is a science in its infancy. To assume that anyone has all the answers in foolishness. To allow oneself to be bamboozled by political charletans who are seeking to profit from this hysteria is sad.

  I agree that the science of climatology is not perfect, but how far from perfect it is, I don't know. It would seem logical to me that it is far more precise now than it was in the 1970's. I like scientists too, the ones I've known anyways. I don't think that they are intentionally dishonest about their findings, in order to keep the grant coffers full, and I don't think there's a GW cult among scientists that punishes and disfellowships dissenters. I would hope that they are more mature than that. And I don't think I'm a brainwashed kool-aid drinker because I'm concerned that mankind's current activities on this planet could be jeopardizing it's future ability to sustain life. Am I 100% certain that this is actually happening? Of course not. But for crying out loud, quit making me out to be a cult member because I'm concerned about it.

  This is all I have time for tonight.
• 

  coffee_black

  Hi Dan,

  I'm not trying to make you out to be a cult member. You seem like a very intelligent person. I'm pointing out that the whole global warming movement uses cultic tactics....and they are working. Just look at some of the earlier posts on this thread and you can see the attitude of some believers in global warming toward those who do not believe...You don't like the way you're characterized. Do you think that non global warming believers like the way that believers in global warming characterize them?.

  Scientists are people like everyone else...there are some good and some bad. Just as there are some unscrupulous lawyers, there are some unscrupulous scientists. Keep in mind that given time I could probably come up with many more articles from the 70s that show what was said and by who in the 70s. It took me only 5 minutes to find what I posted. ... not an exhaustive search by any means. I don't intend to make a career out of this though, so that will have to suffice for the time being..

  In my opinion there is some warming going on...but it's a naturally occurring cycle. One volcano erruption (natural occurrance) can cause more polution and have more impact on the envioronment than all of the polution since the beginning of the industrial age. We've only had tools to measure climate changes for about a century. That is just a blip in the stream of time.

  That's all for now...gotta go make dinner.

  Coffee
• 

  uninformed

  Coffee--

  You are doing a terrific job in your research re global cooling.

  I am 61 years old and also remember during the 50's and 60's there was talk of a global cooling and a coming Ice Age.

  But, DAN, I can't prove it. All I can say is that scientific study is in dispute over global warming. Dan did you ever read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton?

  I think what we are all observing is a common global temperature "fluctuation". Probably has to do with solar activity. Local warming has to do with concrete and cities and roads.

  But Dan, all they can come up with is .06 of a Degree C at the very most. The arctic is warming a little, the Antarctic is cooling and forming more bergs. What the heck.

  I am so unscientific I look stupid, but coffee is putting her research where her mouth is.

  Brant
• 

  5go

  I am 61 years old and also remember during the 50's and 60's there was talk of a global cooling and a coming Ice Age.

  The reason we have an understanding of global warming is due to the fact that an science of the time knew throwing huge amounts of particulate into the air has caused ice ages in the past. The reason global warming was found to be happening stems from the search to find out why that theory wasn't working as it should of been.

  We now know why global dimming as the theory is called now is not causing the cooling it should. It is due to global warming masking it's temperature lowering effect in turn global dimming masks the effects of global warming. Though global dimming causes other problems like droughts which have been observed still occurring as predicted and actually is good for holding back global warming. Though particulate pollution causes huge health problems and droughts in lands an obvious threat to life.

  Which is why particulate pollution is being cut back in most lands unmasking global warming's effect along with it.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I believe this to be true. I am torn every day of my Michigan existence because I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid when the U.S. auto industry

  A Honda Civic Hybrid wastes more energy than a Chevy Tahoe-when you factor in the energy cost of manufacture.

  http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-31-2006/0004330990&EDATE=
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I think what we are all observing is a common global temperature "fluctuation". Probably has to do with solar activity. Local warming has to do with concrete and cities and roads.

  I think it likely also is an ongoing process that predated human civilization by several thousand years:

  This is a geologic blink of an eye ago:

  I am so unscientific I look stupid, but coffee is putting her research where her mouth is.

  You certainly don't look stupid! We are all learning here! Some people here act like they have all the answers, not just for themselves, but for the rest of us too.

  Burn