The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

thaiphoon wrote:

But when the only scientific voices that I have heard denying global warming are those voices funded by oil companies, then I choose to believe scientists whose only vested interest is in the pursuit of science

There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are correct, delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do little environmental good and great economic harm. By contrast, putting off action until we have more evidence of human-caused global warming and better technology to mitigate it is both environmentally and economically sound. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming. Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. The earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin. A Gallup poll found that a small minority of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.

While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 !!!! Agreed .... sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating [u]any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period

Sorry my friend ... if you think that the scientists who are saying that Humans are inducing global warming are only interested in science you're sadly mistaken. They gain by making this a "calamity" that governments must fund in order to help prevent. The funding goes in the form of grants to the very organizations that these scientists run or work for. If you want to play this game of what is behind the research go right ahead, for each one you point out the other side can also point out one.

Instead you should focus on the research and the results.

If anyone cared to look at the IPCC report (which was the reason why the Kyoto Treaty was started) they would notice that the Summary of the report was acutally written by politicans and not the scientists whose work contributed to the report. They would also notice that many of the results that are in the report are either skewed or presented in the reverse in the IPCC policy makers summary which Kyoto was really based upon.

For those who want to say "well lets not take any chances" I ask you. If you lived in Kansas would you take out Earthquake insurance on your house?? I could undersatand Tornado insurance but would you hamper yourself economically in order to prevent loss against an earthquake in Kansas?? The proposed measures would hamper economies and lead to many deaths. This all based upon theories that are not based upon good science. Not exactly making me warm and fuzzy here.

Check out http://www.globalwarming.org/ and go beyond the cases on the first page and look at the data archives. Do some more research and then ask yourself that if the sea levels have been rising for 18,000 years and man has been pumping out CO2 for only the last 100-200 years...how can we be at fault for the continuing rise? Then ask yourself that if we've been pumping out CO2 all this time why has most of the warming occured over 60 years before now. Finally ask yourself that if the actions of the Earth's oceans cause over 95% of all CO2 to be released into the atmosphere and humans cause less than 3% then how are curbing our CO2 emissions going to solve the problem?

I'll give you one caveat in that we shoul have as much vegetation as possible. But remember as CO2 levels rise, vegation grows larger and denser leading to more CO2 being sucked down into a 'CO2 sink". We should be good stewards of our rainforests,etc... and nto continue to clear-cut them I agree. But the Kyoto protocol is bunk and no nation should be stupid enough to sign onto it.

thaiphoon wrote:

But when the only scientific voices that I have heard denying global warming are those voices funded by oil companies, then I choose to believe scientists whose only vested interest is in the pursuit of science

There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are correct, delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do little environmental good and great economic harm. By contrast, putting off action until we have more evidence of human-caused global warming and better technology to mitigate it is both environmentally and economically sound. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming. Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. The earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin. A Gallup poll found that a small minority of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.

While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 !!!! Agreed .... sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating [u]any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period

Sorry my friend ... if you think that the scientists who are saying that Humans are inducing global warming are only interested in science you're sadly mistaken. They gain by making this a "calamity" that governments must fund in order to help prevent. The funding goes in the form of grants to the very organizations that these scientists run or work for. If you want to play this game of what is behind the research go right ahead, for each one you point out the other side can also point out one.

Instead you should focus on the research and the results.

If anyone cared to look at the IPCC report (which was the reason why the Kyoto Treaty was started) they would notice that the Summary of the report was acutally written by politicans and not the scientists whose work contributed to the report. They would also notice that many of the results that are in the report are either skewed or presented in the reverse in the IPCC policy makers summary which Kyoto was really based upon.

For those who want to say "well lets not take any chances" I ask you. If you lived in Kansas would you take out Earthquake insurance on your house?? I could undersatand Tornado insurance but would you hamper yourself economically in order to prevent loss against an earthquake in Kansas?? The proposed measures would hamper economies and lead to many deaths. This all based upon theories that are not based upon good science. Not exactly making me warm and fuzzy here.

Check out http://www.globalwarming.org/ and go beyond the cases on the first page and look at the data archives. Do some more research and then ask yourself that if the sea levels have been rising for 18,000 years and man has been pumping out CO2 for only the last 100-200 years...how can we be at fault for the continuing rise? Then ask yourself that if we've been pumping out CO2 all this time why has most of the warming occured over 60 years before now. Finally ask yourself that if the actions of the Earth's oceans cause over 95% of all CO2 to be released into the atmosphere and humans cause less than 3% then how are curbing our CO2 emissions going to solve the problem?

I'll give you one caveat in that we shoul have as much vegetation as possible. But remember as CO2 levels rise, vegation grows larger and denser leading to more CO2 being sucked down into a 'CO2 sink". We should be good stewards of our rainforests,etc... and nto continue to clear-cut them I agree. But the Kyoto protocol is bunk and no nation should be stupid enough to sign onto it.

But I entirely disagree with your premise that consensus has not been reached on this subject. And on that note, I shall withdraw to the safer but more surreal waters of Hogwash!

andyjens89 wrote:TOO MANY WORDS!

Justice Hog wrote:

"The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, And that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures

thaiphoon wrote:

"The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, And that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations to act as a source of scientific advice on global warming. The so-called "smoking gun" was this assessment;

"The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate"

So people take this to mean that there is scientific "consensus" and that we are the main cause of the warming.

But ... look at the wording of the sentence.

"Balance of evidence" is a phrase used by scientists when evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship is unavailable. It is an admission that genuine proof has not been found. The word "suggests" means different people looking at the same data can disagree on its meaning. And "discernible" means detectible but by no means large or significant. It certainly does not mean "major," "troubling," or even "bad."

Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and past president of the National Academy of Sciences, publicly denounced the IPCC report, writing;

"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures

19,000 scientists including over 2,600 physicists, geophysicsts, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists are small minority ??