Global Warming vs. Pirates

Dramatic climate changes are a natural part of the planets history. Natural causes like Volcano’s and those massive undersea methane eruptions that supposedly sink ships and down planes in the Devils triangle certainly take their toll on the ozone. Hell in a few hundred years the magnetic poles are supposed to switch leaving us exposed to cosmic rays from the sun for a thousand years.

But to say that all the various ozone depleting gasses that Humans are responsible for is having no effect is to me a little naïve. Hell the roommate I had in college probable punched a few holes in the ozone all by himself.

Nature can be both delicate and resilient and a little secretive about what it’s going to be sensitive to. Whether were hastening the inevitable, increasing the level of climate change or having almost no effect at all, it’s not something we can easily take back, the stakes are just to high.

"But we shouldn't do it because of global warming. We should do it because we simply don't know what impact it will have on the environment".

What difference does in make why people do the right thing? Just that we do. Just ask the president if we need to know the real reason we should do something right. I say we get Bob Dole to come out and say CO2 emissions cause ED. The streets would be flooded with men on bikes.

I do not think anyone would say that global warming is caused by CO2. Scientists, except the cranks and wackos, pretty much agree that global warming is a natural phenomenon that has been occuring since the end of the Ice Age. However, they also contend that CO2 is accelerating this phenomenon beyond the otherwise natural rate. That's the distinction. And, I do believe we should cut back on our CO2 emissions for exactly that reason, in addition to all other impacts they have, including health related asthmas, carcinogens, etc. and whatever impacts they have on flora and fauna.

This is why September 19th is so important for the future of our planet. Link

edit: Holy spaghetti! People are required to click on the source link!

I do not think anyone would say that global warming is caused by CO2. Scientists, except the cranks and wackos, pretty much agree that global warming is a natural phenomenon that has been occuring since the end of the Ice Age.

We are IN an ice age right now.  It's just an inter-glacial period.  It is going to get cold again at some point, we just don't know when.

Though I do agree with you - I'd like to see man's impact on the environment minimized.

Tremendous straight line graph. There again, it might be because your X- axis values aren't regular. Actually, more than just being irregular, they go up to begin with and then down later on. Hmm.

Simply put: The number of people live the life of a pirate on the sea has had a dramatic impact on the global temperatures.

As the # of pirates decreases, the temperature increases.  If you really care about the environment, you'll start wearing a pirate outfit to work.

I wonder what they'll blame the next ice age on. Depleted uranium? No, wait, that's new. Hmmm. What were the Conservatives up to 20,000 years ago?

'As the # of pirates decreases, the temperature increases.'
Not between 1820 and 1860. (See my point above.)

And 17 pirates in the year 2000? Obviously this doesn't take software pirates into consideration!

If you really care about the environment, you'll start wearing a pirate outfit to work.

I'll dig out my pirate outfit and gear poste haste for tuesday morning's return to work. I do care about the environment. Thanks for the tip, Brad.

I have to wonder about the "increasing temperatures" when I bundle up like Ralphie's brother and go out my door in January to shovel the ten inches of ice and snow off my walk, and my nose hair freezes in about three seconds.
I guess it may be happening, but even if it is, I don't really think we're the sole reason for it, as some of the more fanatical whackos seem to.
You know the kind....the ones who say the planet Earth would be soooooo much better off if humanity just up and went away. The guy who praised the tsunami last year for wiping the people, the beach chairs and commercialism off the beaches leaps to mind. Or the guy who said we should all go back to living like cavemen if we want to save the Earth...those kinds of nutcakes.

Now, when it comes to environmental issues like the cutting of the rainforests (remember the old days, when they were just "jungles"?), I get a little more Green. After all....most of the air we breathe on this world is generated in those forests, and I do like a little air now and then, just to take the edge off. I would really miss it if it wasn't there anymore.

Is anyone here a meteorologist or environmental scientist? If not, then your opinion on global warming doesn't matter and you SHOULD listen to the experts. I don't claim to know anything about how to write programs that skin windows, yet the people who do would have us believe they're environmental scientists too.

No disrespect intended, Brad, but neither you nor I have the education to be forming scientific opinions about Global Warming. However, those who ARE environmental scientists, meteorologists, etc, do almost to a person believe Global Warming is the result of man's activities in this case. Where are your credentials to credibly disupte that?

Lotherius: What I have heard is more that the scientists that support the "CO2 is bad" camp are much louder because that is the current "popular" stance. Many scientists have said that they don't think man has much impact on the environment, but they did not dare to be interviewed in fear of loosing their jobs (we had quite a bit of debate around this in Norway a while back). The thing is this: As far as scientists can tell, the amount of CO2 we release is very insignificant compared to the amount already there, and CO2 is very insignificant in keeping heat in compared to for instance water. So they are trying to find out if CO2 can have some kind of cascading effect. To say that most environmental scientists belive that global warming is being accelerated in any significant way by our CO2 emissions just is not true.

I'm not an economist, either, but I think people can form their own opinions from the information they have at hand. Were we only allowed to write about what we are experts in, I wonder what JU would look like.

For that matter, no one would be able to dispute anyone with letters behind their name.

who says fedex don't care about the environment?



argggggh

So I said the wrong thing on New Orleans thread yesterday. Love KingBees illustrations in general. Link up there was refreshlingly humurous proof of a point I was also somewhat hoping could relieve my enviromental conscious a bit. CV of Bob Hendersons full of its own highlights. Definately being enjoying spaghetti next time I eat em again.


The only skinners entitled to talk environment should be skinning drawings, not software, or stop arguing environmentally, true. Unless pirate/spaghetti ratio proves in a tattoo that computers are good for environment, which they can be in some cases, maybe, if the right people use em. Preciate your not recommending CO2 abuse. Not a bad approach. Almost feels icy now, (relaxes)

Is anyone here a meteorologist or environmental scientist? If not, then your opinion on global warming doesn't matter and you SHOULD listen to the experts. I don't claim to know anything about how to write programs that skin windows, yet the people who do would have us believe they're environmental scientists too. No disrespect intended, Brad, but neither you nor I have the education to be forming scientific opinions about Global Warming. However, those who ARE environmental scientists, meteorologists, etc, do almost to a person believe Global Warming is the result of man's activities in this case. Where are your credentials to credibly disupte that?

And despite the media hype, there is no consensus that CO2 emmissions by humans have any effect on global warming. 

The difference between me and some others I guess is that I listen to the experts and look at what they are specifically saying and other people read articles written by non-experts who are trying to interpret what they think the experts do (or should) be saying.

I'm not a historian either but I have a pretty good idea of many historical events and am happy to talk about them. I'm not a biologist or anthropologist but I can still freely discuss evolution vs. "intelligent design". 

One has to wonder what the motivation of someone is to tell someone else that they should (Essentially) "shut up" because they don't like what that person is saying.

I, just like anyone else, can read the data that has been put together by "the experts" and interpret them.  I prefer my own interpretations because I know my own biases and know what data was used to form my opinions to that of various media pundits who have unknowable agendas.

The difference between me and some others I guess is that I listen to the experts and look at what they are specifically saying .........

As do I

.... and other people read articles written by non-experts who are trying to interpret what they think the experts do (or should) be saying.

Rather presumptious of you, don't you think. I also read from the expert's discussions. It's my job. Funny how we glean different conclusions from the same reports.

I prefer my own interpretations because I know my own biases and know what data was used to form my opinions to that of various media pundits who have unknowable agendas.

And, I prefer the interpretations of the scientists who are the experts in their field.

Moveon.org and Michael Moore are not experts.

ID, you really are a piece of work.

Please Draginol,

there's a remarkable consensus on global warming.

Here's what the UN says in their latest climate change report ...

The head of the United Nations Environment Programme, Dr Klaus Toepfer, said: "The scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report [the IPCC report] about human-induced climate change should sound alarm bells in every national capital and in every local community."

The report further notes that ...

"The present CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. The rate of increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years."

Then we've got the 3,000 U.S. scientists who in the late 1990's released the Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption, an unprecedented statement urging the United States to lead in the efforts to stop global warming.

And then there's the 1,500 scientists a couple of years after that who released the "World Scientists' Call for Action," urging government leaders to act immediately to prevent global warming. This statement included 110 Nobel laureates and 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners.

Then the 35,000 members of the American Geophysical Union release a position paper on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases asserting that the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are cause for legitimate public concern.

NASA has also noted that global warming appears to be real, and is a cause for concern.

These are all major, credible and serious sources - BUT if one doesn't WANT to believe global warming is real, then one WON'T.

Again, my beef is that those who "don't believe" offer up nothing really - if an opinion is outside of the informed mainstream, then you need something more than "by goshes and by gollies". I take issue with those who don't think it's real - effectively disputing thousands of experts, and offer up no legitimate research. Anyone who knows anything about global warming knows that, in the serious scientific community, there's very little debate it's here now, and occuring (see citatiions above).

Please don't expect us to park our brains at the door, because Oz says there's no consensus.

Ah well worst-case scenario would be my inland south Florida home could soon be oceanfront property. Were not going to be able to do much about it. The US and other counties are going to burn fossil fuels until we run out or they become to expensive. They’re many other man made pollutants far more dangerous than CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that we need to focus on. I don’t have a problem though with the eco nuts that warn us at the top of their lungs that were killing the planet. Whatever our reason it’s a finite resource that we need to wean ourselves of. That will save us a lot of economic pain in the future. I paid $3.15 for gas today and that’s what has got everyone talking hybrids now.

There’s a lengthy but interesting discussion on the Space.com forum. Link

"The present CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. The rate of increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years."

Similarly, the # of pirates has never been as low as it is today either.  That doesn't mean that it is a significant cause of global warming. 

I am not arguing that global warming isn't happening.  I am not certain it is but I am not saying it isn't.  I am, however, saying that people who believe it is due primarily to CO2 in the atmosphere are saying so on very very weak scientific grounds IMO.

There are a LOT of other things humans DO that could affect global temperatures (not the least being massive deforestation and increasing %'s of the planet being covered in human created heat sinks - urban sprawl for instance).

Our understanding of global climate is still in its infancy. And I strongly believe that governments should strive to decrease the impact humans have on the environment even if I'm not convinced that human CO2 emmissions are significantly affecting the climate. When they can put together a climate model that can predict the past 100 year temperatures, then we might be ready to start making bold prouncements of definitive causes of temperature.

There is a great deal of evidence. It’s the interpretation of that evidence that’s so complex. It involves half a dozen specific fields and the most complex computer models ever created but at least it can be studied using the scientific methods unlike ID. The consensus is growing stronger. Link

Besides Global Warming is clearly related to the increasing price of coffee.

Funny how we glean different conclusions from the same reports.

---dabe

Which, like so many other issues, depends upon your social or political views.

ID, you really are a piece of work.

As are you dabe!

Most scientific papers are probably wrong 02:00 30 August 2005 NewScientist.com news service Kurt Kleiner Public Library of Science Medicine Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings. "We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery," Ioannidis says. In the paper, Ioannidis does not show that any particular findings are false. Instead, he shows statistically how the many obstacles to getting research findings right combine to make most published research wrong. Massaged conclusions Traditionally a study is said to be "statistically significant" if the odds are only 1 in 20 that the result could be pure chance. But in a complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift through - such as whether a particular gene influences a particular disease - it is easy to reach false conclusions using this standard. If you test 20 false hypotheses, one of them is likely to show up as true, on average. Odds get even worse for studies that are too small, studies that find small effects (for example, a drug that works for only 10% of patients), or studies where the protocol and endpoints are poorly defined, allowing researchers to massage their conclusions after the fact. Surprisingly, Ioannidis says another predictor of false findings is if a field is "hot", with many teams feeling pressure to beat the others to statistically significant findings. But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research. "When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I'm reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to think about," he says. Journal reference: Public Library of Science Medicine (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)