Global Warming Debate « Dvorak News Blog

Global Warming Debate

By Marc Perkel Monday December 7, 2009

For those who don’t believe in global warming, how do you explain the melting ice caps? Not dealing with the issue of man made or not.

118 Comments

Awake says:

12/7/2009 at 11:15 pm

Breaking news:

The earth is flat.
The sun revolves around the earth.

All the science showing otherwise is wrong, and for centuries has been nothing but a vast conspiracy to enrich scientists. The fact that Galileo admitted to this deceit in front of a tribunal is sufficient evidence of the conspiracy.

My vast knowledge of science also tells me that ozone protects the earth from space radiation, so we should be producing as much ozone as possible, hence ozone control in car exhaust is another conspiracy, led by the medical industry to increase the incidence of skin cancer and generate more business.

———–

Does anyone remember the Tobacco ‘scientists’ claiming that cigarette smoke was perfectly safe and non-addictive, when every independent scientist knew otherwise? History has a way of repeating itself. We even have some morons on this forum claiming that pollution is good.

Personally, I just think that the owner of this blog is tired and bitter that his technological, political and scientific analysis is 100% wrong 100% of the time, so his is trying to save his ‘reputation’ by being a contrarian.

Reply
Wretched Gnu says:

12/7/2009 at 11:42 pm

Libertarians and Conservatives have a long history of calling scientific consensus into question.

Radon is harmless.
Tobacco doesn’t cause cancer.
Evolution doesn’t happen.
Industrial waste doesn’t cause lasting harm.
Sun-bathing does not contribute to skin cancer.
Asbestos does no harm.
Mercury is fine to drink.

We were told over and over that any attempt to address these issues is nothing more than a government conspiracy of subjugation.

And here we are again.

more than the government to dominate our lives.

Yet, somehow, the libertarian/wingnut faction would be shocked if we re-crammed their walls with asbestos and fed their kids lead paint.

As always, they want to live in the healthier world that others have created, and against whose efforts they fought at every turn. They are leeches.

Reply
testtubebaby says:

12/8/2009 at 12:22 am

Hey Wretched Gnu,

How has the government addressed tobacco? Taxing it. Why is it not illegal? Fail.

What does government have to do with evolution? Is there an evolution crisis too? Are we devolving? Oh no! What does evolution have to do with health? Fail.

Good point about sun bathing… We need to tax citizens for exposing skin to the sun. Fail.

Now I get it. Liberals want health, conversatives do not.

Reply
Rick Cain says:

12/8/2009 at 12:23 am

We should not listen to scientists and so-called “Climatologists” with their fancy-schmancy degrees, their snooty math and their “research findings”.

I get my info from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin! They know more than those longhair scientists and Jesus never said anything about global warming.

Reply
Angry says:

12/8/2009 at 12:37 am

I believe in scientists who are interested in researching problems that affect this planet and its inhabitants. They accomplish this by using the scientific method.

I don’t believe in scientists who falsify data for some political purpose or demagogues who stand to make a fortune off such false data.

Here’s a thought: the extent to which humans contribute to environmental problems needs to be studied seriously by scientists who are interested in the truth. The extent to which we pollute may actually be a problem for us down the road, whether it contributes to climate change is another question that warrants study. This means being honest with the raw data, not destroying it, leaving only the doctored data intact that suits your agenda.

The problem with grants to study problems and the peer review process of scientific journals is that they are affected by politics. You want funding? Toe the line.

If you want to be published (which will affect your being granted tenure if you’re an academic) you need to please the reviewers. This also means toe the line.

Maybe the global warming group are right. If so, they need their data to be available for testing, not cloistered and hidden. The scientific method calls for testing assumptions which means testing data. Of course, such openness means the possibility of falsifiability. But that’s OK, right? We’re all interested in truth…well, some of us at least.

It’s too bad that it took hackers to bring the false data and emails forward.

Reply
Hastur says:

12/8/2009 at 1:05 am

# 66
And don’t forget that the capacity for water to absorb gases is less for warmer water. Think of a soda bottle. If you warm it it releases a lot more bubbles (CO2). I think it’s Henry’s law or something.
Anyway this means that if the climate is warming due to natural reasons as for example increased solar activity, the oceans would start to release CO2. That’s a real scientific fact.
This is a good thing though since CO2 is such a good fertilizer. Increased CO2 levels give a higher crop yield and an increased regrowth of forests.
But of course, good news doesn’t sell newspapers and is no reason to increase taxes and take away liberties so don’t tell anyone.

Reply
Badcam says:

12/8/2009 at 1:18 am

Get rid of this contributor JCD.

The guy is an idiot.

Climate change – yes. Always has, always will.

Man made? In your head.

Even that Brasilian chap had better posts than you.

Reply
BipBop says:

12/8/2009 at 1:31 am

#65 Obamaforever:

Your argument is actually an appeal to authority – which to anyone who has taken analytical skills would know is a fallacy aka a faulty argument/premise.

A mathematician can indeed do the modeling and the mathematics involved. A climatologist can indeed be wrong about the climate as he does not specialize in astronomy – in your argument only a climatologist knows best about the climate.. hence only an astronomer could know about the impact of the Sun and cosmic radiation on earth. A climatologist could not, because your argument states that only a specialist would know the field that they specialize in.

Do you see the fallacy in your argument? Another example.. only a volcanologist would know about the effect of underwater volcanoes on water temperature, only a marine-biologist would know the effect of acidity on corals and the effect that has on oxygen and carbon absorption in the ocean.

So what your saying is that the climatologist knows the climate best.. well enough, but he would then not know the causality, he would only look at what is in the climate and assume that the cause is in the climate (air), not know that perhaps volcanoes could be a major contributing factor, or the sun may be a contributing factor through sun spots, cycles etc…

So truth be told..

#60 Smith is actually correct in what he has written and has a logically sound argument. An individual who knows statistics can indeed look at the statistics and comment whether it is wrong methodology. A mathematician can indeed look at the math and say that it is wrong. So #65 Obamaforever, do us all a favor stop the name calling and appeal to authority etc.. and look at the facts as you say.

Reply
Jim says:

12/8/2009 at 1:35 am

After skimming through all that crap, my head hurts a bit. It’s like watching a bunch of drunken UK wives talking about their husbands and squalling kids during a cricket match.

Anyway, the answer would be: there IS global warming, no “belief” involved; it is NOT proven to be manmade in any way; there is NO proof that the impact of global warming will actually be BAD.

Now for the conjecture: there is a strong likelihood that a group of politicos and scientists are attempting to make a global ethical change without knowing what the final results will be; there is also a strong likelihood that much of the “reparation” type activity is driven by Russia and China through proxies in an attempt to bankrupt the west completely.

I have not seen definitive, reproducible proof (you know, DATA) that conclusively points to human based warming. Plus, there is an inherent flaw in the logic — because if we DID cause such an action in the environment globally, we then SHOULD be able to reverse it. Quite simply, actually, just build nuclear power plants all over the world and replace all coal/oil burning power plants. Then replace all jet liner traffic with dirigibles. You then also fix the “global pandemic” problem, since most trips would take significantly longer.

Gradually convert all rail, car and trucking traffic to electric. Suddenly all we’re using is nuclear, with no emissions.

I’d love to see that as the solution. If it’s to be a global solution, then globally retool and move on.

Ahh, but nobody would want to do that, it might cause major economic output and bring most countries into the 21st century.

Reply
Conservative Dad says:

12/8/2009 at 4:47 am

I don’t need no advice from them there book learn’n scientific types. When the lord see the temp go up, he set the temp down.

Lord just busy and not pay’n tention cause it’s christmas and all the orders back’in up. Also needs to follow Palin book sign’n to protect her from the librals.

Reply
Guyver says:

12/8/2009 at 8:27 am

Just out of curiosity, has anyone scientifically proven that Global Warming is caused mainly by mankind and not the Sun?

Or is this “debate” still based on a theory that man has more influence on this planet than the sun when it comes to global temps?

Reply
Wretched Gnu says:

12/8/2009 at 8:49 am

Remember those people who shouted over and over and over and over again that there was no global warming at all, man-made or not?

Remember those guys?

Those guys were you. Those people were the exact same people who insisted that there was no warming at all, that the data confirming it was actually just government conspiracy and greedy grant-seeking science.

Remember that?

Well, now… those people and everybody in this thread admits they were wrong. There was no conspiracy, the science was sound.

They were wrong, they were lying, their total ignorance was exposed.

But now they’re back! And despite their total and proven ignorance, they insists that *this time* they’re right and all the scientists are wrong — again. Human activity has nothing to do with this warming!

Have you people ever heard of a “track record”? Do you wonder why nobody listens to Dvorak and his libertarian contributors on this issue…?

Reply
Dallas says:

12/8/2009 at 8:54 am

#91 Let see. Take an ordinary school globe and paint it with shellac . Now measure the thickness of the shellac.

When you read that thickness is directly proportional to the thickness of the earths atmosphere, it may cause you to pause.

Next, humans started burning fossil fuels 24×7 only about 60 years ago. That was only to industrial the western nations. Now imagine 5X the rate of pollution with 3rd world nations catching up. Think about that.

Next, go to Beijing and witness the air quality. Ask if the sun did that. I’m so global warming scientist but it’s not a leap to conclude they may be on to something.

Reply
RBG says:

12/8/2009 at 9:20 am

No significant melting is under way. Summer of 2007 had the lowest on satellite Imaging for Arctic, but is now up 25% this most recent summer since that low.

The Vikings colonized Greenland in the mid 1000 range. There are entire communities resting under what are now glaciers. Back then it had less snow because it was warmer, and therefore able to sustain a year round civilization based on grazing, farming, fishing. THEN the ice age came and covered it in snow and wiped out the lot of them. Some of those villages are still covered by snow, and the cemeteries are now permafrost. Unlikely they had back hoes or jackhammers to bury their dead in the permafrost.

If there was more glacier ice melt then, why no sea level catastrophe in any of the port cities of the world at that time? If none, why the worry now if we go back to where Greenland was in the past. Their warming was a natural cycle, why is not this cycle natural as well?

If CO2 is the culprit, why no heating in the last 12 years from Satellite data. Ground observations are too tainted by those with an agenda and the ability to manipulate data without having it checked.

One thing that has not been adequately explored is the actual soot that is drifting over from China into the arctic ice caps. Have you ever taken ash from your fireplace, sprinkle it on the snow and see the difference in melting of the snow with normal sun radiation?

Reply
The0ne says:

12/8/2009 at 9:34 am

More fanatics cause of these topics. Dammit, where’s the Palin stories!

Sure pollutions kills buts it’s not harming us now so who the fck cares. Come on, it’s only logical to take action until after…after 99% of the population has died off.

Cycles has dictated that Earth will survive no matter what. We don’t even have to mention that things aren’t nearly exactly the same when comparing time periods, we just pick and choose and hope dumb morons follow the propaganda blindly! Earth is big, the sky and ocean is big…NO ONE should worry that anything is happening. It isn’t like sealing yourself in your garage and inhaling CO2 and dying from it. NO, we have the big sky and ocean to help us die slower and sometimes more painfully like smokers and drug users. Those dead zones in the ocean are charities for poorer countries. All the neat stuff are free for kids to swim in and take home. The best thing is the WHOLE zone is 100% SAFE. Kids swimming in there have no worries about any dangers cause there’s no life there. Walla, 2 birds with one stone! Nice.

All this warming, climate changing, pollution is just bogus stuff for the sane. If anything, when I went down on my knees hacking and coughing like I was going to die from my first time jogging after moving to LA (5min of jogging), it’s only because I was unfit….UNFIT! It’s not the smog, it’s all the years I’ve competed in sports that has degraded me! And it’s definitely not the waste dump up in the mountain directly behind my apartment either; nor is it the ashes and crap that spills over via airborne. Those are FREE fertilizers mind you, FREE! You can’t argue with FREE.

Seriously, look at Bejing, have you ever seen such a more beautiful place? That place is so nice even its people will offer to wear mask to prevent from transmitting illnesses to others. And to solve the problem of sunlight burning your skin, they have enough “fog” to reduce that! That is so awesome! And since water is ssoooooooooo cheap there, you don’t ever have to drink from tap water at all. What a great place to live in.

This climate thing is a joke. Anyone believing it is a nut case. We’re completely safe from everything, we’re humans the ultimate lifeform.

Reply
The0ne says:

12/8/2009 at 9:50 am

Oh, and in regards to polar bears past and present, today’s bear look sick and pathetic because it’s all their fault. Look at the stupid bear on the piece of ice. He’s clearly not fishing for food! Add to that he’s not fishing for food where the majority of them are…on fishing boats. Yes people, polar bears are so fcking stupid they don’t know that they should be fishing on fishing boats instead of their regular grounds.

Add to that they don’t have a clue that they should change their diet it’s no wonder they aren’t extinct yet. Really, fish and seals? One has to broaden the diet to include above all else humans. Now if adults are too difficult then hunt babies, they are easy prey. And since humans eat so much crap they really have all the nutrients/vitamins that a bear needs. They don’t even need to fish anymore! Stupid polar bears I tell you.

This coincides with what I just said above too. Why the hell is the bear sitting on the small piece of ice for. He could have swim for hundreds of miles to someplace like Greenland and start his hunt there. Plenty of fishing boats and human babies there. This bear is just totally stupid and you can tell because you can actually see some of his ribs due to hunger…or more correctly, stupidity.

As to past polars, like in medieval times as someone had originally mentioned, they were, fat, lazy, boring bears. They hardly had to do anything. They didn’t have to chase fishing boats or hunt for human babies. EVERYTHING they needed were where they expected them to be. How easy can life get. If a bear wanted a fish, he go diving and get one. If he wanted meat, he go after a seal. If he wanted to relax, well…there’s ice everywhere. If he wanted to move he needed have to swim hundreds of miles. No energy wasted.

I hate these past polar bears the most. They do nothing aside from what they should be doing. Get it through your head bears…nature is change! You have to go after fishing boats and human babies…hello? Seriously, who in their right minds would like these past polar bears…dumb fcking lazy, know-it-all, healthy bears.

Reply
bonkersbrit says:

12/8/2009 at 9:59 am

hey I have a theory, whatever anyone believes about global warming or not.
THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!
Less people = less industry, less need for abusive agriculture techniques, less transport,less pollution,less cities…….. better life, etc.etc.
Oh I wouldn’t be politically correct if I dared to say that having more than 2 children per family is sheer lunacy, and that in the 3rd world there should be compulsory birth control.

Reply
Wretched Gnu says:

12/8/2009 at 10:35 am

bonkersbrit — yes, compulsory contraception for the “third world”; but not for the nice white litters of the Mormons and Wasps…

Reply
Mr. Fusion says:

12/8/2009 at 10:54 am

#56, Mark,

I wish people would learn from history. The entire later half of the twentieth century was replete with an entire laundry list of pollution “crises”. Some were valid. Some were arguable. Some were bogus. All were exploited to benefit one group or another, be it political or monetarily.

And the denier crowd has this nasty habit of inventing “facts” Here are some rebuttals to part of your list. I didn’t answer more for the sake of brevity.

Here is a short list of crises that I can think of:

Global warming, i.e. carbon dioxide (which we are all exhaling at this exact moment)

Don’t confuse the normal usage with the tons of CO2 put into the atmosphere every day from fossil fuels. Global warming is being caused by the upset of the balance of ALL natural chemicals in the ecosystem.

Global cooling (apparently a side effect of global warming)

A side effect of “global warming? Uugh, no. Global cooling is the mantra of the denier crowd.

Mini Ice Age (which never happened)

Much to the dismay of the denier crowd. They called it and lost.

Thermohaline circulation, i.e. the oceanic conveyor belt (instant New Ice Age)

A phenomena not well understood and only recently discovered. A break or disruption could very well bring on a new ice age.

Hole in the ozone layer, i.e. global skin cancer scare (gave us a ban on CFC based aerosol spray cans and freon refrigerant)

Quite true. CFC (of which freon is a one of) do not break down yet disperse the ozone. This in turn does increase ultra violet light to burn skin and leads to skin cancer.

Acid rain, i.e. sulphur dioxide from coal plants

Yup, another true one. All that sulfur combined with water to acidify rain and snow. This killed lakes and entire ecosystems. I suggest you read about the Inco Big Stack and the effect its pollution did to the surrounding land.

Nuclear radiation (ban all new construction of nuclear power plants thereby forcing reliance on oil, gas, and coal)

There is no new regulation on nuclear power plant construction. Generators stopped building them after Three Mile Island on their own, not because of some government regulation. I understand there are several going through the regulatory approval process right now.

Nuclear winter

Sure am glad that never happened. You should be too. That was if the West and East ever had a full blown nuclear war. The debris thrown up from the explosions would block out the sun’s warmth for months or years.

Carbon monoxide poisoning, i.e. from automobiles

At ground level CO is a very corrosive gas and highly irritating to those with chronic respiratory problems.

Lead poisoning, i.e. lead based paint, leaded gasoline, lead shotgun pellets (non-lead pellets now required for waterfowl hunting)

Another extreme danger that needn’t be. Unless you are (and you might be) already brained damaged from the lead. Lead is especially damaging to growing (children) brains.

MTBE water poisoning, i.e. methyl tertiary butyl ether (ironically required by EPA gasoline regs)

Oopps, not true. The EPA does not require MTBE. They do require fuel that doesn’t emit certain pollutants and MTBE serves that purpose. So does ethanol which has largely supplanted MTBE. MTBE is very toxic and does not break down in nature. Many communities have their groundwater contaminated by it.

Fresh water shortages (gave us crummy low-flow toilets and faucet aerators)

Oopps, missed another. The EPA put in this ruling because of the energy required to clean the water to drinking levels that are used to flush toilets. Also the pumping of the water takes energy. Since much of the energy used to clean and pump water comes from dirty coal fired power plants, this helps to reduce emissions.

Well, maybe next time you can find something not invented by the denier / birther / tea bagger / right wing nut crowd.

Reply
Obamaforever says:

12/8/2009 at 11:07 am

From: Obamaforever
To: Mark T. per #56, #63 and #69

Quote from Mr. Retard (aka Mark T.) see #56 and #69
Hey, I clearly said “Some were valid. Some were arguable. Some were bogus.” I guess you don’t read so good.
End of quote.

Idiot, you never pointed out which ones were valid, arguable or bogus.

Sloppy work, Retard. YOU need to READ your crap more carefully!!!!!!!!!, Imbecile.

I am going to eat your lunch, Pinhead!!!!!!!!!!

It looks like you and FRAGaLOT are in love with each other. Please use protection. We would not want any more retards to come into this world.

I am going to the library. When I get back I will tear you anti-Climate Change retards a new one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply

Leave a Response

Click here to cancel reply.

Global Warming Debate

Leave a Response

Search

Support the Blog

Syndicate

Categories

Pages

About this Blog