Positive effects of Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Sadistic-Savior, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again you attack the source rather than address the information offered...

    Why am I not surprised.
     
  2. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is your OPINION not reality. In the REAL world, it rains providing water to plants, clouds dissipate letting radiation from the sun nurture plants and animals. Then the cycle starts all over again.
     
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CO2 has been much higher than it is now, in fact we are at a low point, and the warmers doom and gloom scenario never happened. How do you account for that?
     
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes but when was the last time it was this high? And with that what is the level of atmospheric CO2 that the current biosphere of the planet is adapted to?
     
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Oh! My! JM (Biologist) - yeah almost as credible a source as the "Oregon Petition" and she is quoting Ian Plimer - Professor of Mining Geology yep! Good credentials in the field and of course, or at least in Plimer's case, no actual conflict of interest is there? (Note I am not actually attacking these people, merely pointing out areas of Academic interest such as whether or not they have a qualification in the field - after all you do not go to someone with a Doctorate in History to find out whether or not your leg needs amputation)

    ^^^^^^^^^^
    This is not science - it is a political statement

    But does have a science component so I will answer THAT

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

    Hang on = Does this mean that Plimer is using data that the AUTHOR has said is unreliable? Surely NOT!


    He is using data that is suspect and 30 year old science papers to foster his arguments and ending them with political statements

    Now you tell me - what sort of academic standard is that?
     
  6. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,626
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/09.17/EarthWasComplet.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html
    http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/wide-angle/mass-extinctions-timeline.html
    http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/mass-extinction/

    The earth will survive. New species will evolve.

    They won't include humans.

    Let us look at it this way.

    Neither of us is 100% certain of the outcome of these events.

    In the worst case scenario for both of our cases:

    We do what I want and I am wrong:

    We have less pollution
    We have less dependence on fossil fuels
    We have fewer wars over energy sources


    We do what you want and you are wrong

    We have more pollution
    Global dependence on fossil fuels increases
    We have more wars over energy sources
    Eventually, the pollution leads to mass extinction of all large animal and plant life

    Best case scenario

    We do what I want and I am right:

    We have less pollution
    We have less dependence on fossil fuels
    We have fewer wars over energy sources

    We do what you want and you are right:

    We have more pollution
    Global dependence on fossil fuels increases
    We have more wars over energy sources
    Eventually we deplete all of the fossil fuels which forces us to do what I want


    You know I can't make the reasoned argument for your position. Even if we disagree over the facts following your path leads bad results while following mine leads to good results.

    Unless you're an oil company.
     
  7. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So because you don't have a Meteorlogical background you can't have studied the theory of Man-Made Global Warming, in your mind?

    What is your background? And if it is not Meteorology then why do you get to have an opinion, in your own mind?

    You understand that Geologists are used in some of this research because Historical records of these things can be found in our "Geology", right?

    Things like Tree rings and Ice Core samples, for example...

    You understand that, right?

    Has the data been disputed and other information replaced it? Shall we take a look at the ice core data?

    http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

    If you look, just recently the CO2 concentration has exceeded the norm that has been going on for some 400,000+ years, and yet the temperatures now have not exceeded ANY of the highest "spikes" in that same time frame.

    If CO2 played a major factor in temperatures, don't you think we would be seeing record temperatures above any of the previous spikes by now?

    And yet, we aren't.

    Why do you think that is?
     
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No that is a strawman

    I am not a meteorologist or a Climate scientist but then I do not set myself up as an expert in the field and certainly do not go on TV claiming to know more than the experts in the field who have studied the subject for years - and that is what both Plimer and Marohasy have done

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3035371.htm
    http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/thinkers/ian-plimer

    And what is your background? and BTW your deflection of the argument to my credentials is an Ad Hom.

    Do not be insulting - I did not question the fact he is a geologist but the fact he is a geologist specialising in mining AND director of not one but three mining companies - the very industry that would love to delay action on climate change - therein lies the potential for conflict of interest.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/01/25/the-power-index-thinkers-climate-sceptic-ian-plimer-at-8/

    Certainly Plimer has the background to understand a lot of the science inherent in global warming but unless he has the academic qualifications to go with that he is still an amateur in the field - that is how academy works (I cannot believe I have to explain this) Look at it this way - a Physiotherapist has a science degree in a field related to medicine they are very good at their jobs but would you allow them to either prescribe medication for you? And the answer should be NO, because although giving someone, say pain medication might look easy on the surface there is a whole knowledge base relating to pharmacology that physiotherapists have NOT been taught

    But even more important than any of that - Plimer has been caught telling Furphies, as has Marohasy

    Plimer

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...eaven--earth---review-by-david-karoly/3141930

    Marohasy

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/24/dr-jennifer-marohasy-ignores-the-climate-science/
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/words_fail_me.php


    (((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))))

    Okaaaaaay

    1) your site is over 10 years old - in climate science terms that is like using a auto mechanical manual from 1950 to try and fix the latest Volvo

    2) There is a time delay in the system because of the ability of oceans etc to absorb some of the warming

    3) You REALLY REALLY REALLY need to read the articles you are posting because the answers to your own questions are there
     
  9. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really, and that is what you have been doing with many, if not most, of the people I have cited.

    How does it feel?

    You don't think Climatologists have a vested interest in continuing the Global Warming farce?

    How quickly do you believe their grant money would dry up, and therefor their JOBS, if they didn't continue to make it an Issue?

    Give me a BREAK. Yet again you use an Ad Hominem attack against those you disagree with but won't use the SAME LOGIC when it comes to those you do.

    Imagine that.
     
  10. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yet you can't show me any other site that has different information than that provided on the one I gave you.

    Why is that you suppose?

    There are sites that talked about the Globe cooling during the 1970's, that are very old...

    Does that make them incorrect?

    I don't believe so, because we did in fact cool for some time, as we are again right now. And yet NONE of the Models that "your side" has been touting for almost 2 decades now show this cooling trend, and none fo them can explain it.

    Yet there are sites that do and have shown why they believe it is happening, that are a bit old. Are they wrong simply because they are old, even though they got it right and your side did not?

    You understand the Sun's part in our Climate System, right? If CO2 were as important as your side believes , why is the affects of the Sun able to drown it out so easily?
     
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    Most of those who rang the bells ware professors at universities who did not rely on grant money because their jobs were secure anyway.

    Now please THINK for a minute - who would get more grants - the poor schmuck sitting in an Quonset hut in Antarctica freezing his nuts off trying to measure ice cores or the bloke on the board of three mining companies getting kickbacks from the Oil and energy lobbies?

    Who has more money to throw around at research - government or private industry? Particularly multi-billion dollar private industries with a lot to lose if someone proves that what they are doing should be stopped?

    Grants are not life long - they are there until the end of the research project - once the research finishes that is it grant over no matter what the outcome

    And you still have not replied to my rebuttal of the OISM so called "peer review paper"

    And I am not going there with Ad Homs with you anymore unless we start a debate on that issue alone in the debate area

    You pick the mod to review the debate
     
  12. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do you suppose they have to continue to say the problem is getting worse and we don't fully understand it yet?

    Their Models are obviously not considering everything, or how could they be so wrong for so long? So they say they need to continue and more grants come rolling in...

    Seems to me your side has some pretty deep pockets as well, with a lot at stake for giving them the 'correct' answers. Who do you suppose stands to make considerable amounts for himself and his investors if they get their way?!?!?!?!

    Here, take a look at some 'deep pockets'...

    http://newsbusters.org/node/11149


    Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming


    ...there are huge dollars to be made from global warming alarmism. However, conceivably no one is better positioned to financially benefit from this scam than Dr. Global Warming himself, former Vice President Al Gore, a fact that the media will surely not share with Americans any time soon...


    ...Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years...


    ...Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

    Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

    Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

    Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he’s buying carbon offsets, he’s actually purchasing these investments from himself.

    Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science...

    (continued at link provided)
     
  13. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did in fact, care to address it?

    I didn't say the summary Article was peer-reviewed, I said the Science they use to come to their conclussions is, and it is documented in the Report they offer at the site. You are free to go read it any time you like, but I am not going to post it here because of how long it is.

    You care to address it, be my guest! I would love to see you address any of it.
     
  14. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I already refuted it here:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...effects-global-warming-25.html#post1060897744

    Then you posted it twice and were refuted by other posters twice.

    The point is that you will post it again somewhere. And again. And again. And all other warmists who read refutes will post it.

    Ant they and you will post refuted pictures of scabies again, and again and again
    http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...effects-global-warming-25.html#post1060891770

    The idea is the same as of Goebbels, fascist Minister of Propaganda, that lies repeated many times will become truth.

    Fascisim is a lie told by bullies, - E. Hemingway.
     
  15. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am sorry, but you post too many letters about Gore. It is difficult to read too many letters.

    Gore and IPCC shared the same Nobel Prize for the same achievement.

    That’s all.

    One does not have to know alphabet to see that as Gore is not a scientific entity, the IPCC is not a scientific entity; but both are the same fascist entity.
     
  16. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As long as the GW/AGW faithful say the climate is 'broken' tax dollars will keep flowing. That is how government works. Once one starts on that 'gravy train' constant failure IS an option.
     
  17. sherp

    sherp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,018
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :laughing::laughing::laughing:
    "The climate is broken". WOW wait until that new Ice Age starts marching down from the North.
     
  18. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You you have it 'bassackwards'....the climate is fine, it's the GW/AGW research industry that HAS to stay 'broken' in order for government tax dollars to keep flowing into grants AND to keep the false eco-industry afloat so they can circle-jerk OUR money around and tell us we're all polluting the Earth.
     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Sorry but where are the models wrong exactly? I know but I would like you to look so you can see for yourself that many of the cliches bandied about by people like the Oregon Institute and "Tallbloke" are not worth the bytes they have used

    And your source about "long pockets is about Al Gore

    American Politician

    American

    Do you really believe he is funding the research the CSIRO (Australia) is doing down in the Antarctic? Is he underwriting all the research being done by Argus or Woods Hole Oceanography? Is he funding NASA? The New Zealand Met office? The Japanese bureau of meteorology?

    That is because the only ones still even remotely interested in Gore is the Denialosphere who keep pushing the idea that old Al has all of the world's scientists locked up in his basement chained to a hot lab bench cranking up the lightning rods for Igor


    So how is this manipulation being carried out on a global scale? Seemingly Al not only has all of the scientists chained up but has also been able to magically influence the world media as well.......

    And here I was thinking the only real life example of "Dr No" was Rupert Murdoch

    Oh! dear! Seems we have run into a Pollyanna's Parrot problem

    AAAARK! ALGORE! AAAARK ALGORE!

    When you get to the bit about how one person is able to influence scientists from multiple disciplines in multiple different institutions to alter their research to make HIM more wealthy - get back to me

    I will be the one sitting back with my feet on the desk chewing popcorn waiting for more comedy to unravel
     
  20. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Sorry but to refute something you have to do better than say

    "I fink it mite be a lye DUH!"
     
  21. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You actually said it was peer reviewed but that aside - which article in particular do you want me to address?
     
  22. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I said they used peer-reviewed Science to come to their conclussions.

    No need to address anything by you, I know your answer already.

    You will simply attack the source rather than address ANY of the Science.

    That is all you seem able to do.
     
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I am giving you an opportunity here - pick an article you say is peer reviewed from there and present it - I will then debate it.


    I am not going to trawl through a mountain of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to try and find the one fractured diamond you insist is there only to have you throw it away and insist that there is a better one in there somewhere
     
  24. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I have said, it is the Science that is peer-reviewed, but I don't expect that you will address it...
     
  25. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It wasn't. Do you have a peer-reviewed reference that says it was? In fact, since the Hirnantian glaciation lasted less than a million years, do you have any reference at all for paleo-CO2 levels that hits that tiny window?

    They weren't. CO2 levels in the Permian were considerably lower than they are today. There was a high-methane episode at the end of the Permian, but that's associated with the end-Permian extinction event, a.k.a. "The Great Dying". I assume you agree that wasn't a good thing?

    It wasn't. CO2 levels were up and down like a yo-yo during the Cretaceous-Jurassic period, but the only confirmed glaciation occured when CO2 was low. (See Royer 2006, figure 3.) So if we look at the actual science instead of denier websites, CO2 seems to be a driver of paleoclimate, just as it is today.

    If you want to go back billions of years, you also have to account for the fact that the Sun was considerably dimmer back then. Without a lot of CO2 in the air during those times, Earth would have been a permanent iceball.

    Geological processes remove CO2 from the air at a rate thousands of times slower than humans increase it. (As shown by Walker et al. 1981. By the way, Walker et. al. 1981 also discusses the faint-young-sun issue for the remote past too. So it is clear that you didn't actually read it.)

    Psychologists call this "projection". It's when you imagine that other people have the problem that is in fact your own.
     

Share This Page