Global Warming? are humans to blame?

You know Troy, I have given polite and reasoned responses, and your uniformed response is to insult me for no reason. It is clear you are out of touch with the political reality, it was the political left that made a scientific debate political.

Cleary there is no reason to waste anytime trying to inform you of facts since obviously your mind is already made up.

 

Boston, if you could actually read and comprehend, you would realize I stated NO such correlation. Here's an analogy maybe even your simplistic mind can understand. Take a freezer filled with food brought down to a stable 32 degrees. Then set the freezer temp to 33 degrees. Take a second empty freezer down to 32 degrees and then up the temp to 33 degrees in it too. Can your feeble mind grasp which freezer will reach and stabilize at 33 degrees first? No, you can't so I'll tell you. The empty one.

The Earth is a giant heat/cold sink. As the temperature increases over time, the sink loses it's ability to moderate the temperature changes and WHATEVER is driving the temperate change has a greater effect. But that is thermodynamics, something of which I doubt you've any comprehension.

I have to admit Boston, you have a mind like a steel trap. It mangles every bit of data that passes through it! So go back and tell your friends how badly you screwed it up, OK? I personally don't understand the excessive use of emoticons in all of your posts - but then simple minds do like simple things. So I'll copy the concept to make you feel like you are in a more friendly discussion.
Oh, I think I'll go tell all my PHD friends, working in the offices around me on various projects, on how a self proclaimed expert of global cooling/warming/shifting/extreme shifting can't even read. That is such a hoot, you ole goof ball!!!!
:

 

You and other climate change skeptics in this thread are pushing fear as hard as anyone: you carry on about how people who want to do something about climate change are really out to destroy western culture, destroy the US, destroy capitalism and free enterprise, destroy our individual freedom, etc. If that isn't fear mongering, what is?

As a matter of fact, as a group you guys seem to think any sort of proposed international cooperation at all is really a disguised attack on the US.

No matter how many scientists you quote, it won't change the absurdity of viewing climate change as a fraudulent scheme. For that to be true would involve untold thousands of scientists, academics, politicians and businessmen in a conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen.

I repeat: I don't buy it. And since your premise is untenable on its face, there's no point in addressing your supporting cut-and-pastes one by one....

You're sounding a little cocky there, son, with your decrees about what 'we' will and won't allow.

Every carbon cap and trade proposal I've seen still involves governments setting up emissions credits, and private companies buying and selling them -- just like any other cap and trade. Do you have a link to one that would involve payments between nations instead?

Here's a link to an article about Obama's 2009 proposal for carbon cap and trade. It had nothing in it about buying credits from other countries:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_11/b4123022554346.htm

Anyone who says cap and trade doesn't work has to completely ignore the Clean Air Act of 1990. That cap and trade system not only drastically reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, but did so ahead of schedule and at much lower costs than projected.

What I've actually said before is that climate change will probably change our world, and change it in ways we won't like, if it isn't brought under control. That's hardly the same as not being able to sleep at night because I think we're 'doomed.'

You aren't nearly as numerous as you think you are, though.

(I predict you're going to be sadly disappointed, come November 6th.)

But why do you so desperately want an all-Republican government? I thought this wasn't about politics.....

 

I'm sorry; I apologize for my undiplomatic manners. But when you say things like it's really the oil companies who are behind the green movement, you can hardly expect me to keep a straight face and just nod solemnly.

No, it wasn't the 'left' who turned climate change into a political football instead of a scientific topic. It was right-wing ideologues like Rush Limbaugh and Republican politicians -- who saw an opportunity to politicize the subject, whip up paranoia about it, and use it to demonize liberals, Democrats and evil foreigners who want to destroy America.

I don't think I'm the one out of touch with political reality here....

 

How are we supposed to prove it, if you simply refuse to accept anything we quote? It isn't like we can subpoena his financial records for the last twenty years, by explaining to the judge we need them for a thread on boatdesign.net....

Believe whoever you want to believe. But Lindzen saying his research is solely funded by the governenment is hardly a denial that he was also being paid by oil companies to testify on their behalf.

Personally, I attach more relevance to the fact that whenever one of Linden's arguments is discredited, he simply adopts a new one.

He's also a well-known contrarian; he'll argue the unpopular side of a topic in a hearbeat.

Lindzen was also a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.

In other words, Lindzen obviously has links to the oil industry, which seems rather odd for a meteorology professor at MIT. You wouldn't think it's the sort of company an atmospheric physicist would normally be keeping. And you'll notice he's another one who's been a paid witness for tobacco companies and oil companies. Maybe you think that's irrelevent. But I think anyone who started out shilling for tobacco companies, then moved on to shilling for big oil, is dirty.

edit: if Lindzen's research is funded solely by the US government, it blows a big hole in claims that the feds only fund scientists who say climate change is real.

 

Au contraire! I respect any scientist who tells the truth, no matter if it's unpopular.
There is no proof tobacco causes cancer. You can't find any.
But if you say something often enough, it gets "accepted" as fact.

The "link" they claim for tobacco and cancer is a reverse statistic. Reverse statistics are bad mathematics. This particular reverse statistic is "90% of lung cancer patients either smoked or lived with a smoker!"
This doesn't work. If you asked exactly the same cancer victims, how many drank water, you'd get 100%. It's a meaningless statistic, promoted by "scientists" with an agenda.

They don't know what causes cancer, just as they don't know what drives climate, except the sun.

A meaninfull statistic is how many smokers get lung cancer.

Approximately 8% of white male smokers in the United States will get lung cancer. Source(s):
World Health Organization (WHO)

Still it's no proof, because they didn't live in a vacumn and do nothing but smoke.
But EVEN if you called this PROOF! You would have to honestly say, smoking causes cancer in 8% of users.
Tobacco doesn't cause cancer.

So I respect those scientists that debunk psuedo-science! Like tobacco causes cancer and CO2 drives climate.

Nobody knows what causes either!

 

I have a theory! How many of the fuzzy-logic psuedo scientists claiming smoking causes cancer, and CO2 drives climate, smoked pot and took LSD at some time?

I bet the vast majority of these folks did. Maybe ALL! Might explain why science lost it's ethics.

(I have never used drugs) I value my mind. Drugs will make you stupid.

 

Let's see... 90% of lung cancer cases are associated with smoking, even though only about 20% of adults smoke.

So what's your theory? That it's just sheer coincidence, some sort of statistical fluke?

The fact that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer in all smokers is hardly proof that it doesn't cause lung cancer in some of them, you know.

 

My point is, 8% of smokers getting lung cancer is not a high incidence. And at only 8%, there is very little cause to even theorize cancer results from smoking.
If you only hit the ball 8% of the time you were at bat, would you be a candidate for a baseball career?
My point is:
Agenda driven science isn't new.

And scientists like Lindzen and Singer are to be admired for their courage, debunking "popular" but false science.

I am ashamed of most of my generation. Sometime in the 60s, they abandoned traditional values, and adopted the ethics of criminals. Do anything you want except don't be a snitch. This drug culture ethic of the bulk of babyboomers has colored business, politics, and even science. And nearly destroyed our country!

 

8% of smokers dying of lung cancer is actually a very high rate, especially compared to the rate among non-smokers.

If you figure 90% of lung cancer deaths are occuring among smokers who are only 20% of the population, I think that means the rate is 36 times higher among smokers than among non-smokers.

Lung cancer was once a very rare disease, until cigarette smoking became popular in the early 20th century. Now it's responsible for almost 30% of cancer deaths each year -- and those deaths are 90% smoking related.

What that has to do with baseball, I don't know..... and I don't admire Lindzen at all.

I disagree completely with your assessment of our generation, too. So did my dad. He told me shortly before he died that on the whole, people nowadays are better than they were when he was a kid, not worse. And he wasn't exactly the Pollyanna, disconnected-from-reality type.

 

are you suggesting I'm a pollyanna?

It doesn't matter. In a few years, global warming will be a footnote in history, an interesting social cultural hysteria phase, studied by opinion makers and social scientists.

Oh, and we aren't going to have cap and trade. YOU might!

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Gov. Rick Scott has signed a bill repealing a cap and trade law designed to control power plant emissions in Florida.

Also Florida has more electoral votes than ever before, but, it's still winner take all. LOL

 

Smoking is directly attributed to 87% of all lung cancers in the United States.
By smoking you are increasing your chances of developing lung cancer to 8%

No big deal really- take a revolver and load just one bullet- that is the risk you are taking.
This is a public forum read by many children- the "agenda base" in cancer research is to save lives.
The correlation of smoking and a increase in the incidence of lung cancer is proven, established science and has been for 50 years now.

 

According to Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 250,000 deaths per year are caused by medical errors, making this the third-largest cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer.
http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public_health/doctors_cause_death.htm

Anybody planning to outlaw doctors?

 

Damn, that's a very good way of illustrating the point.

Personally, I have 2 smokers in my extended family of 19 people. Both are now dead. Lung cancer killed both of them. Nobody else in my family has died from cancer at all. Heart attacks.

Also, speaking to Yo's post way back when today, coal? Please tell me you aren't *for* the burning of coal. You are a man of the water. Don't you remember when we could eat all the fish? It's because of coal burning (mostly) that we now have mercury laden fish that are not edible.

 

Dude, that is some seriously flawed logic. It has no applicability to the smoking discussion.

Let me guess... you're a smoker?