Inconveinient Truth

[TimMurphy]

Dear Flat Earthers,

We have doubled our population in less than 50 years. I'm talking about the whole Earth not just the only country on the Planet that matters, ie. the US of A.

Just imagine how bad things will be 25 years from now when the Earth's population doubles again? It's logarithmic,
as the population doubles the time it takes to double again gets halved.

Just sayin'.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[tomgamber]

SlumpBuster wrote:
1. Al Gore is an idiot with no friends.

Idiot or not, if he didn't have lots of friends, we wouldn't have to see and hear him all the time.

2. Global Warming is happening but we'll most likely see a rise in temps of about 5 degrees over the next hundred years. trout won't disapear and the world won't end.

Its not the air temp its the ocean temp see my first post

Hopefully though PA will one day have ocean front property.

Just a stupid statement

3. This week was the coldest ever in March. Can't remember the time that it was -2 in March. Also its been quiet a long time since streams have been quite so frozen over as this year.

You're right that's pretty extreme. Extreme weather Hmmm... Caused by what? Again see earlier post.

And you're right again...the earth was just fine for millions of years before we got here...but now we're here and its not fine.

 

[Joe]

Is it really Inconveinient? I think it is only inconveinient for those that choose believe that we are the cause and still our own government sees no reason to implement any form of restriction to subdue or reverse the effects of it even though that would create an enormous economic possibility.

I am not sure about this. Obviously man has created alot of issues on Earth. I am not so sure all of the things we are seeing are directly related to Global Warming.

Not saying global warming is not real and not denying the effect it has on our environment. We need not have to sit through 2 hours of Al Gore-effied global warming to see that. It just seems to me that the winter seems to be moving a bit to the left of where it normally is these past few years like we are cashing in our winter for fall and our spring for winter as if our seasons are shifting.

What if in the year 2012 on the day of Dec 21st the Earth drops below the galactic equator and as a result the axis shifts due to gravity from the black hole at the center of the galaxy pulling from a different direction. And what we are experiencing is a direct result of this event that hasn't happened for 25 to 30 million years.
I think the Mayans knew this, just take a look at their calender.

We have been burning witches at the stake for 1000's of years. I know global warming exists but I still do not believe a guy that claims to have invented the internet.

 

[sandfly]

put duct tape on all the polititions mouths and no more global warming.......

 

[Wulff-Man]

SlumpBuster wrote:
1. Al Gore is an idiot with no friends.
2. Global Warming is happening but we'll most likely see a rise in temps of about 5 degrees over the next hundred years. trout won't disapear and the world won't end. Hopefully though PA will one day have ocean front property.
3. This week was the coldest ever in March. Can't remember the time that it was -2 in March. Also its been quiet a long time since streams have been quite so frozen over as this year.

Whew, I feel much better now. That's a load off my mind! Thanks a lot!

 

[FarmerDave]

Padraic wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

Wulff-Man wrote:

od354 wrote:
.... It was posted to show that there IS great debate among scientists as to the cause (despite what you see on CNN or the nightly news)

See Will's post.

Now wait just a dog gone minute. The link provided by od354 has some very good info in it if any of the denier deniers chose to actually look at it.

Yes, and he doesn't seem to be denying that global warming is real. He's just uncertain about the cause. However, he is expressing this in the popular press, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

The consensus is clear if you look at peer reviewed scientific journals that humanity is contributing to global warming. The only place these dissenting opinions appear is in popular news (according to a study quoted in An Inconvienient Truth). [/B]

It's significant to note too that he is still calling for the development of technologies to trap the greenhouse gasses caused by man. So I doubt the article captures the complexity of his position. In fact, the last paragraph sounds like he disagrees with the methods of the current direction (limiting emissions, etc) rather than its goals (reducing the amount of human-caused green house gases).

"The only place these dissenting opinions appear is in popular news (according to a study quoted in An Inconvienient Truth)."



I agree with you Padraic, but I have a minor problem with the part I highlighted. It looks awfully political and is very misleading (not surprising if it was in a Gore film). But then, I don't know the context. The problem is we don't know what they mean by dissenting opinion. Do they mean a “dissenting opion” is one that questions whether global warming is real? If so, the statement is partually true. The problem is that more recently (2007) that label (dissenting opinion) is often fitted to anyone who questions the degree of human contribution. If that is what they meant in the highlighted statement, then the statement is false. The statement also depends on what their definition of “peer” is. Lastly, anytime I see catch all statements that begin with "all", or in this case "the only place," it throws up a flag. More often than not, it makes the statement false. Keep in mind that I don't know if you made a direct quote or paraphrased. I could go on, but i won't. The people who are actually denying Global Warming are quite rare in 2007 (relatively speaking), but there probably are a few still out there. ... and you rarely see that in "popular media". You are more likely to see things on the other end of the spectrum (The sky is falling) in the "popular media". Popular media loves that kind of thing.

 

[ryguyfi]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070308/us_nm/climate_hunters_dc


little article i found this morning

 

[FarmerDave]

Where are the geese? the freakin things are in my back yard. :lol:

I agree with most of the article, but this entire winter has been screwed up. Meteorologists blame the earlier winter weather on El Ninyo, and it is being followed by a La Ninya causing the early melt out west and the freeze in the east. I know i spelled it wrong, but I spelled it like it sounds because i don't know how to type accents on here. La Ninya will screw things up in a different way this summer. My guess is we will probably have droubt in the midwest and Northeast. They are also predicting more severe weather in the SE (huricanes) because of La Ninya. Of course they said the same thing last year (only they said it would be because of global warming), and it didn't happen.

Of course, there is argument out there that the increased frequency of El Ninya and his ugly sister might be caused by global warming.

 

[Padraic]

Farmer Dave,

I'm paraphrasing. I read the book An Inconvienient Truth some time ago, but the study really struck me.

A study (it was published in a peer-reviewed journal also) surveyed popular media and peer-reviewed scientific journals. Whether the words "only" or "dissenting" were used, I cannot say for sure. What I do recall is that there were no articles (as in none) found by the study (which was a large representitive sample, but not everything) in the scientific journals which said that the global climate was not under going a warming trend. The majority (I don't remember the percentage) agreed that human activity was a factor in this. How significant? Well, of course that would be very hard to say, and I don't know if the study tried to capture that. I simply can't recall.

The popular media seems to represent the "debate" on global warming equally. Whether that is because they see that as a way to boost ratings or because they don't understand the issues, I couldn't begin to guess.

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:
Where are the geese? the freakin things are in my back yard. :lol:

And the geese are in your yard because it's become so warm that they don't migrate south anymore! That's been a problem in PA for years now.

One thing I noticed in that article was that they said this past season was a bad one, that they only got 40% of what they usually get. I think this is an example where GW is on everybody's mind, so they attribute everything to it. It's not going to just show up in one year. There will be a gradual shift in whatever your seeing as evidence that it's happening. Now on the earlier runoff issue, it wasn't clear if this was something that had been happening or getting worse over years and years. He did say that "when I was a kid" the runoff was never so early, so it seems that it was a long term shift.

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:
Where are the geese? the freakin things are in my back yard. :lol:

And the geese are in your yard because it's become so warm that they don't migrate south anymore! That's been a problem in PA for years now.

That is part of it. Probably a big part of it this year. We had the warmest January ever, and December was also pretty warm. But there is more to it. Many of the geese around here (and in PA) never did migrate. At least not very far. Canada geese were exterpated from Ohio in the last half of the 19th century. I understand the original geese were the lesser Canada Geese (not entirely sure on that one point). Back in the mid 1950s about 10 pairs of Giant Canada Geese were introduced into Ohio's wetlands to re-establish a nesting population. The problem was, these were not taken from migrating populations. Now there is close to 100,000 of the darn thing nesting in Ohio. The Giant Canada is vary adaptable, and is less likely to migrate anyway. If there is sufficient food, they stay. If people would quit feeding the darn things, many of them just might leave. Yhere are so many that we now have an early hunting season for them before the migration starts.

When I was a kid growing up in PA, the only geese we would see were flocks flying high overhead, and those were fairly scarce. It was a treat to see them. Even today, people think it is neat to see a pair of geese especially if they have young, and the first thing they do is feed them. big problem.

I'm not an expert on geese, but a search on the net or in ODNR or posssibly the PA Game Commission would probably turn up info on this.

 

[troutbert]

If you wanted to learn about nuclear physics, would you do that by asking about it on a website about flyfishing in PA?

It's the same with climatology. If you are actually interested in the subject, go to a good library and check out books on the subject and read them.

 

[JackM]

I don't think people are trying to learn climatology here, I just think they are trying to have a discussion and share opinions and thoughts. That's kind of hard to do at your public library with the old lady at the reference desk shhhhhhhushing you every few minutes.

 

[MattBoyer]

troutbert wrote:
If you wanted to learn about nuclear physics, would you do that by asking about it on a website about flyfishing in PA?

It's the same with climatology. If you are actually interested in the subject, go to a good library and check out books on the subject and read them.

I dunno, man. Y'all taught me how to fly fish. How much harder can nucular fizics be? :lol: Seriously, though, when I read the topic for this thread I thought things were gonna head South might quickly. I'm truly impressed at how well almost everyone has kept their heads on what's usually a pretty touchy subject. I knew there was a reason I liked you guys! :-D

Boyer

 

[RLeeP]

>The popular media seems to represent the "debate" on global warming equally. Whether that is because they see that as a way to boost ratings or because they don't understand the issues, I couldn't begin to guess.>

It isn't really completely germane to the thread topic, but I think the established traditional media is currently under tremendous pressure to over extend itself in terms of objectivity. I'm not talking about op-ed, but the actual news page. Whether real or not, the alleged "liberal bias" of the mainstream media is an article of faith for a lot of people. The highly partisan nature of the political blogosphere only increases this pressure and a lot of media outlets are, IMO, bending over backwards to give equal coverage and credence to opposing viewpoints far out of proportion to the real world credibility of some of these viewpoints. This is so, IMO, not just on climate change, but on an entire range of issues with political significance.
The nature of media is changing rapidly and drastically and one portion of the exhaust, IMO, is this industry-wide panic to be all things to all people. In that regard, I think you're right when you speculate that some of this "balance" we see is about market share. Everything is changing though and there's a lot of fear in the industry.

On the issue of climate change in specific, here is something I find interesting when we look at the discussion against the template of the acid rain debates of the 70's and 80's. When acid dep. was a front burner issue, it seems to me that the power and energy industries took a position of deep denial almost until the last dog was hung. Long after the NWF's power-plant footprint studies that firmly established the relationship between nitrate and sulfate emissions and stream acidification, groups like the Edison Institute were still doing the ostrich thing and lying through their teeth.

The climate change matter seems to be tracking in a significantly different manner. Much, if not by now the majority, of the major energy companies and the power industry is already on board as acknowledging the problem and even in some cases, moving to address it. I see this as a very hopeful thing, or at the least, very different from the way the acid rain debate tracked. It sort of tells me that it probably isn't going to be that long before the entirety of the hard core global warming denial community will be able to hold their meetings in a very small hall. Major changes in policy are all but certain and soon at that, IMO.

The question that remains is whether we will actually be able to do anything about it. I'm not nearly so hopeful about that.

I fully understand the huge dissimilarity between the two issues, their scope and potential for dire consequences. I'm just saying that looking at it in this narrow comparative fashion gives me hope that we will not dither or dink-around or have to sort out so many liars this time.

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:
If you wanted to learn about nuclear physics, would you do that by asking about it on a website about flyfishing in PA?

It's the same with climatology. If you are actually interested in the subject, go to a good library and check out books on the subject and read them.

Very true bert. So then, why exactly did you read this thread?

 

[Wulff-Man]

RLeeP wrote:
..... I think the established traditional media is currently under tremendous pressure to over extend itself in terms of objectivity. I'm not talking about op-ed, but the actual news page. Whether real or not, the alleged "liberal bias" of the mainstream media is an article of faith for a lot of people. The highly partisan nature of the political blogosphere only increases this pressure and a lot of media outlets are, IMO, bending over backwards to give equal coverage and credence to opposing viewpoints far out of proportion to the real world credibility of some of these viewpoints.

It's a bit of a relief to know there are others out there who feel this way.

 

[troutbert]

FarmerDave wrote:

troutbert wrote:
If you wanted to learn about nuclear physics, would you do that by asking about it on a website about flyfishing in PA?

It's the same with climatology. If you are actually interested in the subject, go to a good library and check out books on the subject and read them.

Very true bert. So then, why exactly did you read this thread?

Not to learn about climatology. More for the entertainment value. I thought it might be entertaining in the way a train wreck is entertaining. Surprisingly few casualties. So far...

 

[FarmerDave]

MattBoyer wrote:

troutbert wrote:
If you wanted to learn about nuclear physics, would you do that by asking about it on a website about flyfishing in PA?

It's the same with climatology. If you are actually interested in the subject, go to a good library and check out books on the subject and read them.

I dunno, man. Y'all taught me how to fly fish. How much harder can nucular fizics be? :lol: Seriously, though, when I read the topic for this thread I thought things were gonna head South might quickly. I'm truly impressed at how well almost everyone has kept their heads on what's usually a pretty touchy subject. I knew there was a reason I liked you guys! :-D

Boyer

That just goes to show you that most of us agree that global warming is real, no matter what is causing it or what effect it will have, and that Al gore is still a bonehead dispite his movie and his Academy Award. :lol:

 

[FarmerDave]

Here is a link to a NY times article about Gore's movie. Before reading it, understand that I am not trying to upset anyone by posting it. Please understand that there is both support and criticism of his movie in this article. The guy is a politician, not a scientist, so I don't think anyone expected him to get everything right. And he didn't. He even admits that some things were inaccurate. And nobody is saying he got everything wrong either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin