(yawn!)

Here's the deal. I'm not disputing that global temperatures have warmed in recent years. I am disputing that we are the cause. I do not, to answer your question, hold an advanced degree in science, but I have studied weather patterns most of my life (literally...when I was in early grade school, my family used to call me "the weatherman" because I was reasonably accurate in short range forecasts, and I have read a great deal of material on both sides of the debate. But I suppose an advanced science degree is required to understand plain English, huh?

I just implore those who can't respect the OPINIONS of those who debate a topic to please stop having a scientific debate. But it seems I'm not going to get my wish any more than you are going to get yours, so let's just try to get along, OK?

Do YOU know how much an SUV guzzles? I'd think not. For the record, some models, if driven responsibly, consume no more gasoline than your average minivan. I own a Chevy Suburban and I get just slightly upwards of 20mpg on the highway with no special additives or gimmicks.

Yes there are 8mpg SUVs. But all SUVs are not created equal.

Several things - they are scientists (I believe it was you who challenged any of us that had a background in science - these people do as do most of us).

The number of BS vs PHDs is immaterial. They swamp the puny number that have signed on to Global warming, and even if they did not, 31k signers is a lot. And 3.7k related to the subject? How many meterologists are there in the world? Certainly not millions. So we have at worst, a significant minority that says GW is bunk!

Third, I do not hold this up as proof of anything, other than those who want to believe in raw numbers, could be swayed by it - but then that wouldbe as honest as those who believe Algore as well. The simple fact is that there is a good debate going on - one side. Those who do not believe it and have significant facts to back up their hypothesis. Whereas the ones that believe in Manmade GW are the ones trying to stiffle debate. And that would make any thinking rational person ask why?

And the only answer is that they cannot stand debate as it would lay bare their hokum on the subject. There IS A DEBATE on the subject. YOu just choose to plug your ears with your fingers while screaming "nananananana". But the opposite side is not going away as you can see. Nothing you have presented is conclusive proof of anything other than "you can fool some of the people all of the time". It was true 100 years ago when first uttered, and is being proven today.

I'm thinking if they truly believed our use of "fossil fuels" (quoted here because, umm, there's some debate on THAT, too) was endangering the planet, they would be pushing for vehicles that don't use those fossil fuels rather than pushing for vehicles that use less.

You go right ahead and do that. Gimme a call when gas hits 8 or 9 dollars a gallon and your power bill gets so high that you have to juggle between keeping the AC on or the lights.

The truth is that the current modern lifestyle simply is not sustainable. Did you know that in the U.S you have some of the cheapest gas in the world? In many European countries, translating Euros to dollars and gallons to litres, they pay the equivalent of almost 10 dollars per gallon. Now with the U.S dollar tanking in comparison to the other major currencies, and China very succesfully competing for your overseas oil, the price you pay at the pump is only going to increase.  

No matter what side of the aisle you come from, nature abhors inefficiency, and doesn't give a damn about our political opinions on the subject. And right now much of our technology and transport is pretty damn inefficient!

Right on the money with that one, Arty. The main reason we need to make changes is because of the inefficiency of our current way of doing things. CFL's are better than incandescent bulbs because they don't give off as much heat energy, which is essentially wasted energy, especially in the summer time.

And efficiency benefits us because we can stretch our resources further.

That, in a nutshell, is why I generally try to adopt a green approach, and why I consider it a good idea regardless of what you believe on the issue of global warming.

Now we are again at 'temperature is not changing significantly.'

http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/noaa_1000yr.gif

This is a thousand year of data. You see, it was all ok and fine and happy life until 1970, and the temperature just went nuts. And please do not tell me increase of 1 degree is not that significant. That really scares me, really.

Even before scientists who do not support man-made global warming are extremely minority, you clearly do not understand the nature of scientific community, at all, if any. Of course they debate this issue a lot, because this is important issue. They also debate the credibilities of the newton's laws of motion, arguing about gravity and so many others. But do such existence of debates render the existence of these elements -motions, gravity and others? I don't think so.

At last, you NEVER GET TRUE CONCLUSION you want from science. All data have some kinds of errors and other factors that none of (yes, NONE of) scientific achievements have absolute, true conclusions on the subjects. If you want such complete, true conclusions, I'd suggest you go for Religion; you are asking to wrong people there. All scientific theories, laws and others (including Gravitational 'theory', the theory of Relativity) are accepted because different kinds of many observations support those theories.

Now, for man-made global warming, there are many observations that either incomplete or dubious, but the thing is that there are many kinds of observations that support man-made global warming, including satellite observations, ice melting, sea level, temperature analysis, and many others.

Now back to majority vs minority here. Let me ask you a question: why do you stick to (extremely) minority? Why do you ignore generally accepted theory and go for few's opinion?

You said about their motivations. Their motivation is simple; to tell the things they found in the most accurate way. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless they are hired by interest groups (to be honest not really 'unless' even in such cases) They will tell you what they observed. You know, they are 'scientists'. Now tell me what's possible (buhahahaha) motivations of NASA, IPCC, AGU, NOAA, CMOS and others, and some really few people who disagree?


Man, does it sound just plain stupid? Here is a definition of 'scientist' for you.

http://education.jlab.org/beamsactivity/6thgrade/vocabulary/index.html (Please don't feel insulted by 6th grade thingy. They are not really for 6th graders.)



In the end, it is just plain absurd and ridiculous to apply critical thinking for why some scientists agree and disagree. It just does not make any sense at all, and waste of time. :/

CFL is worse than incandescent bulbs in some cases. Here is a articles written by a sound/electronic engineer.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

wnmnkh,

Ahhh, so you're a true believer. Ban all electricity and open flame, better to curse the darkness than light a candle, eh?

I know that CFL gives SIGNIFICANT cost savings over incandescent, from personal experience.

Wow, you provide a link to a chart that you don't even seem to be able to read. That chart clearly shows a 1,000 year history of temps going up and down, just like they are supposed to do. Yes, it does show an slight increase in the 20th century over some previous peaks, but it's hardly significant when compared to even older temperature periods where the planet was much, much warmer than it is now. Oh, and there were no cars or factories during those times.



I understand the scientific community quite well, obviously much better than yourself, much as I understand the science much better than you seem to understand it. I also understand the nature of objectivity which you seem to lack in spades. You're so convinced of this dubious theory of man-made global climate change that you can't even wrap your little mind around the possibility that it's completely wrong, or at best highly overstated.



No shit? Objective science does not "want" a conclusion. You observe, test, evaluate data, form a hypothesis, test that, and draw a conclusion.




Because I know how to think for myself. Sheep like yourself just accept the "generally accepted theory" without questioning or doing their own research. I have spent a very long time evaluating the available data on this subject, from all fields of study that could possibly relate to it and I happen to believe that that minority of which you bleat happen to be correct.

Remember, in the 1970s it was generally accepted theory that we were heading into another ice age in the very near future. You see one? I must have missed it.

It was generally accepted theory that the Earth was the center of the universe. I am pretty sure that's been proven false.

It was generally accepted theory that heavier than air flight was a physical impossibility. That has obviously been proven false.

Get the point, or do you need more?



This one statement demonstrates just how naive you are. Do a little checking into just how many billions of dollars in research monies are being poured into this man-made global warming bullshit. It has become a booming industry just as the same research was in the 70s when they cooked up the whole ice age story and scared the shit out of the sheep like you who swallowed that hook, line, and sinker. They had some pretty good looking charts and data back then too.

You misread the table. Those yellow area is error margin. The black lines are the one shows the reconstructed temperature. Here is more clear/better one for you.

http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Plus:
1) The changes in these days are just way too rapid. It is simple insane compared to old times.
2)According to Milankovitch cycle, we should have very gradual global cooling since a long time ago, but we don't have at all.

There are periods when the temperature is quite high (not high as today's remind you) But even such cases the changes are very very slow, unlike today's change which skyrocketed in less than.... uh, 30 years?






So if you understand it well, you should not even state 'true scientific conclusion' on your argument then. As you said yourself, such thing does not exist.

Oh wait, you really do not understand anyway, since you keep saying 'dubious' on the global warming! If the global warming is dubious enough for you, then other theories like newton's laws of motions, the theory of Relativity are dubious as well (in fact, even more dubious if you ask me.) So you don't believe these theories because they are dubious. Man, If the theory of Relativity is dubious enough to not use, then we should not use GPS at all because a large part of its mechanism is based on that theory!






Even before I mention that that global cooling thingy in 1970 was not even considered as majority's opinion, and never gained acceptance as much as quarter of the global warming theory received....


All theories made can be (most of time) wrong after some time passed. For example, back to Newton's Laws of Motion and the Theory of Relativity, they had been regarded as valid until a new theory emerged. We now know the Newton's laws do not work on the large scale of motions, while both Newton's and Theory of Relativity fail to describe the motions of small particles as small as/smaller than an atom. I will not be surprised if a new theory emerge in future to replace the global warming theory, but currently this is the one widely accepted and proved one. Again, this shows that you are not used to general science.

By the way, the global warming is a very old theory, back to 100 years.





Of course billions of dollars are poured because they need for maintain those expensive scientific equipments and other stuffs. Hell even one like a really small-scale vibro-solidification investigation for earthquake scenario my team and I had to write a proposal would costs tens of millions if it happens. Let alone the research for the ENTIRE earth. I am not surprised how much money is being poured.

But again, let's say it is true that there is something else is going on those research projects, then -let me ask you AGAIN- what would it be?

So what's their goal to spend billions of dollars to prove/investigate man-made global warming?


Screw up average Americans to shrink their businesses? OK, but it will certainly affect the other sides of the world. All of us will have to reduce the business which makes too much pollution into the air and change to cleaner one. And I do not think that such measure will reduce the jobs for Americans, rather, as Mccain pointed out (very sorry to use him again. ), it will make MORE jobs if we use this change right. Only thing we need to do is saying that "we will act if rest of you guys act as well (China and India)" Simple as that.

Try to hide the fact that global warming is not really true? That's absurd. Why we need to do that? If it is not true, all of investments we made in last century will be still useful for a while, and it is welcomed by everyone, including many scientists funded by corporations.

Try to be famous by making new, cool theory? Well, again, that's too funny to be true. And you will not become famous if everyone else is saying the same thing. And you don't want to make a useless theory if it gives some disadvantage to current businesses.

I said earlier.


I ask you again the same question, now without laughing and in really full seriousness, what is their motivations according to your thought? I really want to know.

Jesus Christ.

I know the article I mentioned is quite long, but can you at least read my statement CORRECTLY?

I said,

see 'in some cases'.

I never said that we have to live in darkness and reject lights of technology we made.
And again, can you please at least try to pretend to read the article first I mentioned?

It already has - in the UK.



Again the problem. We have already seen one revision of the temperature that declared the "warmest" years on record (revised to 1934). And that is just in the last 100 years. Again, we look at your chart and while of course the swings look dramatic, it is only dramatic when you ignore the scale. Then they are insignificant. And the final truth is the chart is just a guess for temperatures before 1900 because man had no accurate way (and definitely no way to measure fractions of degrees) prior to that.

There is a reason that real scientists say "....on record" since the vast majority (with the exception of the last second of earth time) is not on record. And as Mason pointed out, the increase (slight as it is) in temperatures in the latter part of the 20th century correlates very well with the increase in sunspot activity.

But lets assume for a moment in time, that we can dismiss all these concerns about the data. A mighty assumption that will usually lead us down the wrong path, but for the sake of argument, we will assume it now.

Your next task is to prove that it is caused by man. And his actions. And that no one can do, period.

There is a reason that there is a Heisenberg Uncertainty principal - and the cause of that is you cannot isolate your observations with your causes, because when you eliminate all other factors to focus on your suspected root cause, you change the dynamics of the system - and therefore negate the test. While Heisenberg was talking about the behavior of electrons, his principal applies to all systems where man is still GUESSING at dynamics. Taken as a whole, the hypothesis that man is burning up the world cannot be tested so far, and the data does not support the conclusion as the effect of man is dwarfed by the effect of nature and the sun.

No, what you're seeing is the eyeroll of someone who's tired of the "never quite good enough" attitude of the "greener than thou" club. And my response was a logical extension of the premise. Incandescents = bad, CFL's = bad, fire = VERY BAD, you're not leaving us with a lot of options to satisfy your "green" requirements, and that's basically my point.

As I mentioned, I drive an SUV. But I've also done my research, and it is the most fuel efficient vehicle I can afford to transport my family. Same with CFL's. I realize every form of lighting will have its tradeoffs, the goal is not zero environmental impact, the goal should be minimal environmental impact. And not because "the sky is falling", but because we should be responsible stewards of our environment whether or not the sky is, indeed, falling.

I believe you, and others, are sincerely trying to do what you consider to be good in spreading your gospel. But by criticizing every move that people make you are essentially driving people AWAY from being environmentally responsible rather than driving them to it.

And I'd be interested to know how "green" your computer is.

Wow, you really are a stupid shit aren't you? You're trying to compare the laws and theories of physics with this bullshit idea of man-made global warming? Your arguments get dumber and dumber all the time.

You can try to toss out as many stupid insults and bullshit comparisons as you like but the idea, not even a legitimate theory just an idea, of man-made global warming doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory.

If you truly understood the concepts of physics you'd understand just how solar activity not only affects the planet's temperatures but also how the very predictable solar activity has accurately been used to (78%) predict the warming and cooling trends of the past several decades.

Dr. Arthur Robinson's work might make an interesting read for you assuming you have the education to understand it.

My education is in science, mathematics, and engineering, how about yours? Based upon what you've had to present so far I'd say, what?, a G.E.D?

Why do I waste time time on these morons?