A new look on global warming

Remove all ads!

actually iku-turso, if you read the article it is only less when all 4 factors(higher co2, 50% increase in precipitation, a tempature increase of 2 degrees F & increased nitrogen deposition) are present at once that they grow less.

 

Indeed. That was there just to highlight that plant growth isn't as straightforward as more co2 -> more plant growth.

If I'd think that you're wrong or completely wrong, I'd say so soon enough.

 

Now iku-turso(wags finger) you know we are not allowed to have a civilized discussion on this thread
We are only allowed to each other!!

 

More on the extremes that zealots will go to preserve the myth of the scientific consensus

 

The Naomi Oreskes page does not mention Benny Peiser's name anywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

The Benny Peiser page says this, emphasis mine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser

It doesn't seem to me that Wikipedia is quite the zealot bastion that Solomon makes it out to be.

 

"Zealots" have a tendency to regconize one another anyway. And there's nothing more amusing than zealots editing each other over and over and over again. Who will have the last word (or edit)?.....stay tuned....

 

Yo mama's a zealot.

 

Both wiki articles on Oreskes and Peiser were modified this morning. It is quite possible wikipedia chose to modify the articles because of the article TGS quotes.

 

I suppose that you have a point about the edits, Chandos, but if what the guy said in the Wiki article was factual, then the fact that someone is stifling that fact should trouble you of all people.

I know that in University I was unable to state, even politely, opinions that differed from the politically correct status quo. I certainly wasn't able to subsequently back them with stats of any source, because I'd get shouted down or someone would pitch a fit or play the race card. That's what I see happening here.

And YOU, DR, what kind of comment is that?? No humor in the Alley, remember? BAD bunny!

 

The Alley is loaded with humor, but most of it's unintentional.

I did not experience that, even though I was in one of them most "poltically correct" programs at the university - literary studies. I was very outspoken about my own views on Literature. As for being troubled by any of the above: Nah, it's all political. It seems that both parties have an agenda that has little to do with being "factual."

Edit: One of the best moments I had was in one particular literary class, as the instructor was ranting about our adherence to the English language as being "Eurocentric". I reminded the class that Spanish was also a European language, much to her distain. But this really is a subject dear to my heart and I would be glad to pursue it at anytime on another thread.

 

Then you really picked the wrong university. My school was, ah, ultra-liberal, and yet we didn't have that problem.

 

This is interesting... http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report.

My take on the whole issue - I'm all for keeping the environment as green as possible, but man made global warming is nowhere even remotely near as serious as some make it out to be. At any rate, global warming >>> global cooling.

 

You can't expect anyone to believe a report issued by the U.S. Senate. Isn't the U.S. and the U.S. govenment controlled by evil oil corporations? Oh wait, now I remember, the U.S. senate is controlled by the Democrats. Maybe there is some truth to the article.

 

@Snook: Yes, it is absolutely true that a little over 400 prominent scientists "have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming" that happen to be held by over 5 times as many equally prominent scientists.* Aside from the fact that this was old news last year, this doesn't really change the fact that climate change is a matter of science. It isn't a matter of politics, philosophy, or even accounting. Shouldn't we be more interested in the opinions of the scientists who are actually, uh, qualified to study climate change than the elected politicians (who are mostly lawyers) in the senate? If, as you say, lawyers shouldn't be doing their own taxes, then they probably shouldn't be weighing in on anthropogenic climate change, either.

* If you saw a toothpaste commercial saying that four out five dentists recommend avoiding their product entirely because their review of the test data led them to conclude that there is a 90% probability that prolonged use will make your teeth fall out, but the other one out of five either rejects that idea or doesn't think it will be that bad, would you buy that toothpaste?

 

Umm, Drew, there are some problems with your post.

1.) Where do you get the claim that over 2,400 scientists actively support GW theory? And please don't cite the IPCC report, because that was not actually indicitive of the scientists' opinions. Of all the scientists that were involved in it, only 58 of them were at all involved in the conclusions section (other sections seriously question GW theory). Of those 58, 55 had a significant vested interest (financial, political, or professional) in furthering GW theory. So, basically, 3 scientists that were not obviously biased is not more than 400, many of whom have switched sides upon actually looking at the evidence.

2.)The fact that it came out last year doesn't mean it's old news, or irrelevant.

3.)The link I opened was a collection of scientists talking about global warming, not a collection of politicians.

4.)

Well, first I'd ask my dentist, who I know hasn't been paid by either side of this debate. But more to the point, if four out of five psychologists told me that video games were directly responsible for violence in America today, where as one said it's just a fun past-time, I'd tell the four to shut up and ask the fifth what his favorite weapon in Fallout 2 is (flamethrower FTW).

You see, the issue is that the scientists haven't settled the issue. Sure, there are plenty out there who will say they have and only kooks are discounting it now (you probably included), but these are credentialed, professional, experienced researchers.

Also, I'm sorry, but in science, majority vote doesn't win. The evidence does.

 

Sorry, NOG, but no reasonable person can take your point #1 seriously. Vested financial interest in Global Warming theory? You are aware that the government would positively jump at the possibility to fund rosier climate research, aren't you? In fact, more research coming out to muddy the water will only to lead to increased funding for everybody. Additional research will need to be conducted first of all to duplicate and further test the new results, and still more research will be needed to see what effect, if any, the new results will have on the existing paradigm surrounding climate change. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

NOG, it was old news when it came out last year. Really old news. The Senate isn't exactly known for its speed or responsiveness, you know. When that Senate report came out last year, I yawned. Had you been following things more closely, you would have yawned, too.

Absolutely, and scientists, not lawyers, politicians, partisan hacks, religious zealots, accountants, hair dressers, or even phlebotomists decide who's evidence wins. Currently, by far the vast majority of scientists who have reviewed (and are qualified to review) the evidence believe it points to the consensus opinion. Any argument to the contrary is borne solely of delusion.

 

Sorry NOG, Bozar rules.

 

A Gauss pistol with @200 points in small arms, 10 luck, and the Sniper perk will out damage any weapon in the game.

 

I had Sniper amongst others. Two bursts per round averaging ~1000 damage per burst. Even Horrigan wasn't a challenge.

 

Repped.