Global Warming Conclusively Linked To Human

moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Posts: 4,219 Advanced user
«1

Comments

  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members Posts: 1,531 Fully active user
    Yep, we cause it. And it started 8000 years ago.

    Time to fire up the genocide machine.
  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members Posts: 1,531 Fully active user
  • DepotDepot The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members Posts: 6,411 Fully active user
    QUOTE (moultano @ Feb 18 2005, 01:11 PM)
    Any guesses on how Bush is going to dismiss this?

    Why would he dismiss it? And why did you single HIM out? wow.gif
    image
    modNS Forums - NS1 and NS2: We Wrote The Book On NS Moddingimage
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Posts: 4,219 Advanced user
    Spooge, did you even read the articles I posted? That looks like nothing more than a knee jerk response. Are you capable of accepting that recent human activity might be causing global warming, or does that just not fit with your well researched and infallible world view?

    I singled Bush out because his approach to the issue in the past has been less than scientific.
  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members Posts: 1,531 Fully active user
    edited February 2005
    QUOTE (moultano @ Feb 18 2005, 12:59 PM)
    Spooge, did you even read the articles I posted?

    yes.


    QUOTE
    Are you capable of accepting that recent human activity might be causing global warming...


    yes. Are you capable of accepting that gas bubbles extracted from the Antarctic show that prehistoric man initiated the process? Or, that climate change is constant and the recent minimal variations are normal in comparison to the last few million years? Or (gasp!) that humans have such a small fraction of an effect that nothing we do will alter the process?

    EDIT: Or, that any group of eggheads will do whatever it takes to renew their government grant funding and generate their own job security regardless of the cost?
  • AposApos Join Date: 2003-06-14 Member: 17369Members, Constellation Posts: 689
    Oh, of course. A lobby site created to aid business interests is definately as trustworthy grabbing at any straws they can to pull wool over the eyes of the public as actual science done by actual scientists!
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Posts: 4,219 Advanced user
    edited February 2005
    QUOTE (Spooge @ Feb 18 2005, 01:08 PM)
    QUOTE
    Are you capable of accepting that recent human activity might be causing global warming...


    yes. Are you capable of accepting that gas bubbles extracted from the Antarctic show that prehistoric man initiated the process? Or, that climate change is constant and the recent minimal variations are normal in comparison to the last few million years? Or (gasp!) that humans have such a small fraction of an effect that nothing we do will alter the process?

    The article you linked to on gas bubbles was showing nothing more than correlation. Gas bubbles in the artic indicate increased levels of carbon dioxide around the time that humans might have started to have a substantial effect on the climate. Correlation != causation. The scientists who conducted that study know this, and considered it no more than "a great new idea we need to talk about and evaluate." You are giving it more weight than the scientists that conducted the study.

    We have here a brand new study giving us pretty convincing evidence of a causative relationship, and all you can say is that other people came to different conclusions in the past? What you are doing at the moment is basically FUD. A lot of people have said different things, so therefore regardless of any new information, there's still way too much uncertainty to say anything.

    QUOTE
    EDIT: Or, that any group of eggheads will do whatever it takes to renew their government grant funding and generate their own job security regardless of the cost?

    Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't trust this study because it was conducted by scientists?
  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members Posts: 1,531 Fully active user
    QUOTE (moultano @ Feb 18 2005, 01:17 PM)
    QUOTE
    EDIT: Or, that any group of eggheads will do whatever it takes to renew their government grant funding and generate their own job security regardless of the cost?

    Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't trust this study because it was conducted by scientists?

    If this group told you that there was no direct connection between humans and global climate change would you believe them?
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Posts: 4,219 Advanced user
    QUOTE (Spooge @ Feb 18 2005, 01:36 PM)
    QUOTE (moultano @ Feb 18 2005, 01:17 PM)
    QUOTE
    EDIT: Or, that any group of eggheads will do whatever it takes to renew their government grant funding and generate their own job security regardless of the cost?

    Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't trust this study because it was conducted by scientists?

    If this group told you that there was no direct connection between humans and global climate change would you believe them?

    Of course I would, with the usual caveats of ensuring peer review etc.
    You didn't answer my question.
  • SpacerSpacer Invented dogs Join Date: 2003-05-02 Member: 16008Members Posts: 1,527
    QUOTE (Depot @ Feb 18 2005, 12:46 PM)
    Why would he dismiss it? And why did you single HIM out? wow.gif

    Because at every singly global warming convention, America has always been the country to withdraw from the talks.
  • HandmanHandman Join Date: 2003-04-05 Member: 15224Members Posts: 277
    I think he was saying that when you say something like this

    QUOTE
    He said that this breakthrough evidence must not be ignored by world leaders, especially those currently not putting climate change at the top of their agenda, like best friend to the polluting industries President Bush and Australian Premier John Howard.


    Im sure they don't have an agenda <--sarcasm

    When I hear scientist saying crap like this, it makes me just a skeptical about their findings as those who take the funding from businesses.

    Have they published any of their models or findings yet?
    user posted image
    "To crush your enemy, see them driven befor you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" -Conan
  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members Posts: 1,531 Fully active user
    QUOTE (moultano @ Feb 18 2005, 01:40 PM)
    You didn't answer my question.

    I question the motivation of any group whose survivability is grounded solidly on receiving government grants. And yes, that includes military projects.
  • HandmanHandman Join Date: 2003-04-05 Member: 15224Members Posts: 277
    QUOTE (Spacer @ Feb 18 2005, 01:46 PM)
    QUOTE (Depot @ Feb 18 2005, 12:46 PM)
    Why would he dismiss it? And why did you single HIM out?  wow.gif

    Because at every singly global warming convention, America has always been the country to withdraw from the talks.

    Excuse me if my knowledge is a little dated, but last I remember;

    They want to heavily regulate large countries, while the little ones are free to polute to their hearts content. This is no way to solve the problem.
    user posted image
    "To crush your enemy, see them driven befor you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" -Conan
  • SpacerSpacer Invented dogs Join Date: 2003-05-02 Member: 16008Members Posts: 1,527
    Because the large countries are the ones causing the problem? Developing countries have hardly any emissions compared to Europe and America, but whilst Europe agrees to lower emissions, America won't. What's more important, the principle or the world we live in?
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Posts: 4,219 Advanced user
    QUOTE (Handman @ Feb 18 2005, 01:46 PM)
    Have they published any of their models or findings yet?

    Of course. That's how science works.
    QUOTE
    Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said on
    Thursday climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not
    even there.

    "The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.

    His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    to calculate steady ocean warming.

    "The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

    The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental
    pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global
    warming is occurring and is caused by people.

    Barnett urged U.S. officials to reconsider.

    "Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.


    QUOTE

    I question the motivation of any group whose survivability is grounded solidly on receiving government grants. And yes, that includes military projects.


    Why even bother questioning their motivation? Their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with their results. That's how science works. If you have a problem with their methodology bring it up.
  • HandmanHandman Join Date: 2003-04-05 Member: 15224Members Posts: 277
    QUOTE (Spacer @ Feb 18 2005, 01:57 PM)
    Because the large countries are the ones causing the problem? Developing countries have hardly any emissions compared to Europe and America, but whilst Europe agrees to lower emissions, America won't. What's more important, the principle or the world we live in?

    Here in lies the problem with that mentality.

    Most larger nations already regulate pollution, while smaller nations do not. This really hurt the US Steel market. Now when you put more regulations on these countries, you are going to drive what facctories are left to other smaller nations where regulations are not a strict. This would be a devestating hit on the economy on any nation. With less regulations in the smaller countries where these businesses are relocating, you would end up with more polution.

    The problem with the global warming convention is how they are going about analyzing the problem. You cannot look at this problem in a purely scientific method.
    user posted image
    "To crush your enemy, see them driven befor you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" -Conan
  • SpacerSpacer Invented dogs Join Date: 2003-05-02 Member: 16008Members Posts: 1,527
    QUOTE (Handman @ Feb 18 2005, 02:04 PM)
    Here in lies the problem with that mentality.

    Most larger nations already regulate pollution, while smaller nations do not. This really hurt the US Steel market. Now when you put more regulations on these countries, you are going to drive what facctories are left to other smaller nations where regulations are not a strict. This would be a devestating hit on the economy on any nation. With less regulations in the smaller countries where these businesses are relocating, you would end up with more polution.

    The problem with the global warming convention is how they are going about analyzing the problem. You cannot look at this problem in a purely scientific method.

    True, it would make more sense to make the regulations the same because that happens, but is that reason enough to just NOT reduce emissions, purely because of that?
  • DepotDepot The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members Posts: 6,411 Fully active user
    QUOTE (Spacer @ Feb 18 2005, 02:46 PM)
    QUOTE (Depot @ Feb 18 2005, 12:46 PM)
    Why would he dismiss it? And why did you single HIM out?  wow.gif

    Because at every singly global warming convention, America has always been the country to withdraw from the talks.

    I resemble that statement and demand proof! wow.gif
    image
    modNS Forums - NS1 and NS2: We Wrote The Book On NS Moddingimage
  • HandmanHandman Join Date: 2003-04-05 Member: 15224Members Posts: 277
    QUOTE (moultano @ Feb 18 2005, 01:57 PM)
    QUOTE (Handman @ Feb 18 2005, 01:46 PM)
    Have they published any of their models or findings yet?

    Of course. That's how science works.
    QUOTE
    Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said on
    Thursday climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not
    even there.

    "The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.

    His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    to calculate steady ocean warming.

    "The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

    The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental
    pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global
    warming is occurring and is caused by people.

    Barnett urged U.S. officials to reconsider.

    "Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.


    QUOTE

    I question the motivation of any group whose survivability is grounded solidly on receiving government grants. And yes, that includes military projects.


    Why even bother questioning their motivation? Their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with their results. That's how science works. If you have a problem with their methodology bring it up.

    I mean is it on the internet.


    How can a question their findings?

    How can you so quickly dismiss what Spooge posted?

    When you have an agenda going into research, believe it or not it can effect the data that you collect and the way you interpret it. So yes, motivation has a lot to do with it. Im not dismissing the findings, nor am I accepting it. What I was saying is that when you make statements like he did, you don't help yourself. Alls you succeed in doing is having yourself questioned.

    I personally believe we have something to do with global warming and should do something about it. I do not agree with any of the metods suggested to solve it, other than alternative fuel sources and nuclear power.
    user posted image
    "To crush your enemy, see them driven befor you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" -Conan
  • HandmanHandman Join Date: 2003-04-05 Member: 15224Members Posts: 277
    QUOTE (Spacer @ Feb 18 2005, 02:10 PM)
    QUOTE (Handman @ Feb 18 2005, 02:04 PM)
    Here in lies the problem with that mentality.

    Most larger nations already regulate pollution, while smaller nations do not.  This really hurt the US Steel market.  Now when you put more regulations on these countries, you are going to drive what facctories are left to other smaller nations where regulations are not a strict.  This would be a devestating hit on the economy on any nation.  With less regulations in the smaller countries where these businesses are relocating, you would end up with more polution.

    The problem with the global warming convention is how they are going about analyzing the problem.  You cannot look at this problem in a purely scientific method.

    True, it would make more sense to make the regulations the same because that happens, but is that reason enough to just NOT reduce emissions, purely because of that?

    Wow everytime I post something, I have to respond.

    Im not sure as to how far in the United States get into the talks before they withdraw from the talks, are you? It is possible that they are trying to work with something, but the other nations are not. This is politics, the bad guy is not always who it appears to be.
    user posted image
    "To crush your enemy, see them driven befor you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" -Conan
  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members Posts: 1,531 Fully active user
    QUOTE (moultano @ Feb 18 2005, 01:57 PM)
    Their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with their results. That's how science works.

    Reason Online Conflicted Science

    Would you say the same thing about Industry funded research? (I would)
    Conflict of interest is smeared all over research groups. I'm not the one proclaiming the "Conclusiveness" of global warming's link to humans. Where is your peer review? Where is the analysis of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography's funding for this research project? Who stands to benefit financially/politically from this research? Who faces financial/political detriment from this research?

    Let's allow the scientific community as a whole dig through every aspect of these studies before we start screaming "Conclusiveness".
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Posts: 4,219 Advanced user
    edited February 2005
    QUOTE (Spooge @ Feb 18 2005, 02:32 PM)
    Let's allow the scientific community as a whole dig through every aspect of these studies before we start screaming "Conclusiveness".

    Naturally. But if we can't come up with substantial criticism, we should be prepared to accept the results. Furthermore, if I myself can't come up with substantial criticism, I'm going to tentatively accept the results, until I hear well supported criticism from another source.

    My point is that you aren't done just by questioning motivation. Its not enough to just show a conflict of interest. You have to show both a conflict of interest, and that the interpretation of the data or the data collection methods were faulty. You have to be prepared to divorce the information from its source.
  • SpacerSpacer Invented dogs Join Date: 2003-05-02 Member: 16008Members Posts: 1,527
    edited February 2005
    QUOTE (Handman @ Feb 18 2005, 02:16 PM)
    Im not sure as to how far in the United States get into the talks before they withdraw from the talks, are you?  It is possible that they are trying to work with something, but the other nations are not.  This is politics, the bad guy is not always who it appears to be.

    Well all I know that is either all of Europe or the vast majority agree to it, whilst America pulls out. America being the major industrial player in the world, it'll be hard to have a global emmissions reduction without America joining in. Not to like.. diss you or anything, I'm just stating the truth.
  • Pepe_MuffassaPepe_Muffassa Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members Posts: 537
    I've heard it said that humans are responsible for ~ 1-2% of all "greenhouse gas" emissions - the rest are "natural" (volcanos, etc.) 97% is watervapor, 3% is C02.

    Extrapolate that over to this "increase" in temperature - and humans are responsible for ~.01 of a degree in change (actual math not applied). Now this change is supposed to be "horrendous" and "bad" - explain that to me.

    Ok, on a similar note, lets assume that the earth is warming, and we are playing some part in that. Now, I believe, it is the scientists job to convince me that this warming is "not supposed to happen" - which it probably is.

    a quote from the site that spooge pointed out:
    QUOTE
    Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed."


    Keoto is simply world wide socialism with an excuse. I'm glad were not in it - there is no compelling reson. The science behind global warming is 1/2 assed at best, skewed in its reasoning and outright lying most of the time.
    In Soviet Russia, walls strafe you ...

    SoS 8:6-7 "...for Love is as strong as Death, it's Jealousy unyealding as the Grave!"

    BY THE PADDLES OF PONG WHAT DO MIDICLORIANS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?!
  • theclamtheclam Join Date: 2004-08-01 Member: 30290Members Posts: 1,795
    QUOTE
    I've heard it said that humans are responsible for ~ 1-2% of all "greenhouse gas" emissions - the rest are "natural" (volcanos, etc.) 97% is watervapor, 3% is C02.


    1-2% can still cause some big changes. What if, say, 1-2% of the ice in the polar regions melted? How do you think coastal regions would feel about the oceans raising several feet in height?
    QUOTE
    quote from the site that spooge pointed out:
    QUOTE
    Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed."

    Spooge's link referenced The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. When he cites an impartial scientific study, then we should believe him.

    QUOTE
    Keoto is simply world wide socialism with an excuse. I'm glad were not in it - there is no compelling reson. The science behind global warming is 1/2 assed at best, skewed in its reasoning and outright lying most of the time.

    Before you make statements like this, maybe you should stop referencing conservative think tanks, and look up some reputable sources.

    And what the hell does Kyoto have to do with socialism?
    user posted image - Avenger X
    I'll miss you.
  • Pepe_MuffassaPepe_Muffassa Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members Posts: 537
    wealth redistribution
    In Soviet Russia, walls strafe you ...

    SoS 8:6-7 "...for Love is as strong as Death, it's Jealousy unyealding as the Grave!"

    BY THE PADDLES OF PONG WHAT DO MIDICLORIANS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?!
  • SnidelySnidely Join Date: 2003-02-04 Member: 13098Members Posts: 3,896
    I've read about Kyoto, and how America didn't sign up for it; but none of my sources (English newspapers) have explained how this is going to be enforced. What if a country doesn't meet its target? Do they get fined, and if so, who do they pay the money to?

    I've googled for it, but all the links talk about what the treaty is meant to do/discuss the fact that America hasn't joined, and don't give details about how it's meant to work. If someone has such a link, I'd be more than grateful.
    user posted image
    user posted image user posted image uuuuussssssssser posssssted iiimage

    USER POSTED IMAGE
  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members Posts: 1,531 Fully active user
    QUOTE (theclam @ Feb 22 2005, 02:02 PM)
    Spooge's link referenced The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. When he cites an impartial scientific study, then we should believe him.

    Find an impartial scientific study and I'll show you the same study is influenced financially/politically in one way or the other.

    Moultano and I agree here that factual science (not truthful science) needs to be continually verified by multiple tests and sources to be considered legitimate.
    As it stands, in my opinion, there is too much junk science out there to pinpoint cause for climate changes.


    QUOTE
    And what the hell does Kyoto have to do with socialism?


    Money.
  • theclamtheclam Join Date: 2004-08-01 Member: 30290Members Posts: 1,795
    QUOTE (Pepe Muffassa @ Feb 22 2005, 02:08 PM)
    wealth redistribution

    Kyoto isn't wealth distribution. Here is what it does:

    QUOTE
    The Kyoto Protocol commits the developed nations to reducing their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride -- by at least 5% of 1990 levels by 2012. The European Union, along with Switzerland and most Central and East European states, will cut emissions by 8%; the United States by 7%; and Canada, Hungary, Japan and Poland by 6%. Russia, New Zealand and Ukraine must stabilize their emissions, while Norway is allowed an increase of 1%, Australia 8% and Iceland 10%. The six gases will be combined in a basket, with reductions in individual gases translated into "CO2 equivalents" that are then added up to produce a single figure.


    I don't see any wealth redistribution there.
    user posted image - Avenger X
    I'll miss you.
  • SnidelySnidely Join Date: 2003-02-04 Member: 13098Members Posts: 3,896
    edited February 2005
    I guess it's true if you define socialism as the view that the government should control industry (as the government forces companies to cut down on emissions), but I think it's a bit iffy. Socialism tends to be more economically related.
    user posted image
    user posted image user posted image uuuuussssssssser posssssted iiimage

    USER POSTED IMAGE
Sign In or Register to comment.