Hot Arctic

[damus]

Ahh, now we have anecdotes about rats on pot.

Sure our government has done lots of bad things and it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Provide some proof the National Academy of Science has done this or is wrong which is all that I am asking. You have made statements such as this before without being able to back them up.

Well, actually I have made statements in the past that you demanded for me to back up, and I backed them up. This time I stated that I was merely playing devil's advocate. I really don't know anything about this study.

[monsoon]

link from 2004 refuting global warming... at least as far as the sensationalized version of it that we hear about in the media and from politicians and environmentalists (and even some scientists)

Again we get another link from a conservative right wing group that isn't exactly unbiased CNSNews (not CNN News) is owned by the Media Research Center and they cite the following as big supporters Rush Limbaugh. Bill Bennett, Bob Novak and other leading conservatives. While I might not be familiar with the intracacies of scientific research on the climate, it's easy enough see FUD being created by those who start out with the words "liberal bias in the media". These are some of the most sensationalist people in the media.

BTW, they did not provide anything in that article that would refute Global Warming except for an opinion and completely ignored the findings of the Arctic Council.

[runawayjim]

Again we get another link from a conservative right wing group that isn't exactly unbiased CNSNews (not CNN News) is owned by the Media Research Center and they cite the following as big supporters Rush Limbaugh. Bill Bennett, Bob Novak and other leading conservatives. While I might not be familiar with the intracacies of scientific research on the climate, it's easy enough see FUD being created by those who start out with the words "liberal bias in the media". These are some of the most sensationalist people in the media.

BTW, they did not provide anything in that article that would refute Global Warming except for an opinion and completely ignored the findings of the Arctic Council.

so we have 2 sides... the liberal media who blows global warming out of proportion (which includes all the environmentalist bloggers) and the conservative media who refutes it. who are we to believe? scientists who want to find that global warming is happening will do so by ignoring certain things. scientists who want to find that global warming is not happening will do so by ignoring other things. there are very few studies that are 100% inclusive because it's almost impossible to consider everything there is and not have it take well over 5 years. a rushed study by the national academy of science ignores many criteria that need to be considered. they made up for the rushing by using very unscientific means to come up with conclusions that should not be considered to be scientifically conclusive, such as observing paintings.

i will admit that i did misread the CNS for CNN.

[damus]

Again we get another link from a conservative right wing group that isn't exactly unbiased CNSNews (not CNN News) is owned by the Media Research Center and they cite the following as big supporters Rush Limbaugh. Bill Bennett, Bob Novak and other leading conservatives. While I might not be familiar with the intracacies of scientific research on the climate, it's easy enough see FUD being created by those who start out with the words "liberal bias in the media". These are some of the most sensationalist people in the media.

BTW, they did not provide anything in that article that would refute Global Warming except for an opinion and completely ignored the findings of the Arctic Council.

Well I was just skimming through that article and saw this

Other participants in Thursday's panel discussion also disputed McCain's statements. Harvard Astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas agreed that using the polar ice caps to promote "global warming" did not make sense.

"Antarctica has been cooling for the last 50 years. Most of the Arctic has not warmed over long time scales," Baliunas told CNSNews.com. Baliunas also serves as the enviro-science editor for Tech Central Station.

"Temperatures [have] always changed in the past and [they] always will. It can either go up or it goes down. We don't have enough understanding of natural variability and we don't see enormous amounts of temperature change to be alarmed about," Baliunas explained.

The wiki you posted earlier is said to be known to be a left wing site. Is there a reason that anything posted that points to a right wing site is automatically not credible?

[monsoon]

I am willing to believe what science says, and science says that Global Warming is occuring, despite what the conservatives would have us believe. Our scientists have simply joined the rest of the world in admitting that humans are causing global warming. There is no bias to independently peer reviewed scientific research despite the railings of people like Rush Limbaugh. (who is nothing but an entertainer that some mistake for an authority)

[runawayjim]

I am willing to believe what science says, and science says that Global Warming is occuring, despite what the conservatives would have us believe. Our scientists have simply joined the rest of the world in admitting that humans are causing global warming. There is no bias to independently peer reviewed scientific research despite the railings of people like Rush Limbaugh. (who is nothing but an entertainer that some mistake for an authority)

if you believe there is no bias to peer-reviewed research, you are kidding yourself.

that being said... show me some links to some peer reviewed articles that say global warming is occurring and humans are the biggest cause. that national academy report is a report, not peer reviewed.

[damus]

I am willing to believe what science says, and science says that Global Warming is occuring, despite what the conservatives would have us believe. Our scientists have simply joined the rest of the world in admitting that humans are causing global warming. There is no bias to independently peer reviewed scientific research despite the railings of people like Rush Limbaugh. (who is nothing but an entertainer that some mistake for an authority)

I don't know why Rush Limbaugh was brought into this... Again, look at the articles that were posted and who's quoted. Why would Harvard Astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas and University of Virginia Environmental Sciences professor Patrick J. Michaels have doubts about global warming and if they were biased/corrupt why aren't they being chastised? This conversation is making me think that the mainstream media (AP, reuters, NYT, etc) really is biased. They always seem to give a voice the minority viewpoint when it seems to fit their agenda, or when if it's against their agenda to make the minority look like clowns (like the "God Hates F*gs" people).

Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said "Even if it's true that robins are making their first appearance in Arctic areas, what it means is that the robin's habitat is expanding."

"I always thought environmentalists liked birds. To me this is good news," Lewis added.

This made me laugh...

[monsoon]

that being said... show me some links to some peer reviewed articles that say global warming is occurring and humans are the biggest cause. that national academy report is a report, not peer reviewed.

Easy enough. Look here.

[monsoon]

I don't know why Rush Limbaugh was brought into this...

If you are unable to figure it out, then you really ought not be participating in this thread. I suspect however you are being disingenous again which is a waste time in this discussion. The point is that these arguments that are nothing but attempts to muddy the discussion at hand.

[runawayjim]

the mainstream media is biased and does sensationalize both liberal and conservative viewpoints (but generally it sensationalizes the liberal viewpoint, hence "liberal media").

the blogosphere is no better, in fact, i'd consider it worse when it comes to science. every joe schmoe with an internet connection thinks that because they found links on google, they're true. they post them in blogs and people believe it.

but if we're going to ignore anything the conservatives say, why should we believe the liberals? i actually had professors in college (geophysics, ecology, and environmental science to be exact) who disagreed with all the global warming fanboys. there is just as much evidence for it as there is against it.

now, i'm not saying we shoudln't try to reduce greenhouse gases and all that stuff. in fact, i think we should be more "green". but i don't think we shoudl do it in the name of some inconclusive studies. the link from science magazine (which i don't think is a peer reviewed scientific journal) does not show actual research studies, but rather says "these important scientists say global warming is real". is taht enough for me to believe it? no. taht's their opinion, but they haven't performed the actual studies and they come from all realms of the scientific community, not necessarily those who study world climates.

the article from the canadian free press was just tossed aside because it's "a conservative publication" but it has actual quotes from real scientists. but they must be wrong in their studies because they are quoted in a conservative publication...

[monsoon]

You asked for a link that showed peer reviews and I provided it for you. I did not spend much time in indulging you as I figure that if you were really interested you are capiable enough to type the relevant search words into google and have a look for yourself.

You have already said that you don't believe in Global Warming so your points about the media really have no merit in this discussion except to confuse the difference between commentators and scientists. You can directly to the websites of the the actual scientists and their organizations and decide for yourself if their findings are relevant or not, without having it filtered by zeliots. However given that you simply don't believe in it, I suspect that won't happen.

[runawayjim]

You asked for a link that showed peer reviews and I provided it for you. I did not spend much time in indulging you as I figure that if you were really interested you are capiable enough to type the relevant search words into google and have a look for yourself.

You have already said that you don't believe in Global Warming so your points about the media really have no merit in this discussion except to confuse the difference between commentators and scientists. You can directly to the websites of the the actual scientists and their organizations and decide for yourself if their findings are relevant or not, without having it filtered by zeliots. However given that you simply don't believe in it, I suspect that won't happen.

you have yet to do the same... i have tried searching for proof, and the internet is a cesspool of commentators. so i haev yet to find an article that proves the theory of global warming.

the only thing scientists have come out and said is that they believe it is occurring based on certain evidence. and i've found stuff that says scientists don't believe it's occurring based on certain evidence. that's not fact, that's opinion (in both sides of the debate). i think that's where i draw the line. science isn't about opinion, it's about facts.

[intcvlcphlga]

again, i am not a conservative, i am a liberal and i am most definitely an environmentalist. however, i am anything but an idealist.

Just curious, but how do you define an environmentalist?

[runawayjim]

Just curious, but how do you define an environmentalist?

i don't define an environmentalist as someone who believes everything he hears about things being "bad for the environment".

i define it as someone who cares about the environment. to do that, you don't have to believe in global warming.

[g-man430]

Seeing how i'm too lazy to read all of your posts. I'll just say this. It doesn't matter if Global Warming is real or not, even though I think it is. The fact is that our atmosphere is becoming increasingly polluted with things like CO2, which is a greenhouse gas even though the Bush Administration doesn't think it is. Our country and the entire world needs to be looking at and implementing more mass transit instead of more gas guzzling things like SUV's and that new Airbus. We also need to look into Hydrogen more too.

[damus]

Seeing how i'm too lazy to read all of your posts. I'll just say this. It doesn't matter if Global Warming is real or not, even though I think it is. The fact is that our atmosphere is becoming increasingly polluted with things like CO2, which is a greenhouse gas even though the Bush Administration doesn't think it is. Our country and the entire world needs to be looking at and implementing more mass transit instead of more gas guzzling things like SUV's and that new Airbus. We also need to look into Hydrogen more too.

Well... hydrogen fuel cells are flawed. You need energy to get the hydrogen out of water. The cleanest way to do this would be nuclear power, but that won't happen any time soon. There's also the argument that we could burn our massive coal reserves off while cutting off our oil rich "allies".

I think everyone here would like to see the Earth less polluted, but harming our economy while shifting the saved CO2 emissions over to the third world (which will then get richer, drive more cars, etc, etc) is not the answer. If we are going to take an economic hit and change our regulations, it should be across the world or at least required amongst our free trading partners.

There are other problems that have been ignored lately while the media has been hyping the US's excessive car usage. Remember the rain forests? They're still being destroyed. Any nationwide tree planting program is meaningless when compared to what the same amount of energy could accomplish by attempting to halt the destruction of the rain forests in South America and Africa.

Here's a pic previously posted by monsoon

This is what you see in large cities all over the developing world... and the governments don't seem to be taking nearly enough action to try and curb it, even those that could afford it like China.

[runawayjim]

destruction of the rain forests is the single biggest cause of global warming... much greater than any car emissions...

[monsoon]

This is what you see in large cities all over the developing world... and the governments don't seem to be taking nearly enough action to try and curb it, even those that could afford it like China.

It should be noted the industrial pollution in places like that shown in that photo are being supported by consumers in the USA. The reason the manufacturing is there and not in the USA is because the lack of regulation on pollution reduces the cost of manufacturing these consumer items. The global problem is still primairly one caused by the inhabitants of the USA, it's companies, and government.

[dimebag1980]

It should be noted the industrial pollution in places like that shown in that photo are being supported by consumers in the USA. The reason the manufacturing is there and not in the USA is because the lack of regulation on pollution reduces the cost of manufacturing these consumer items. The global problem is still primairly one caused by the inhabitants of the USA, it's companies, and government.

I've officially heard it all now. So now we're not only responsible for our own pollution, but the pollution in the rest of the world as well?

Thanks for that. I now have something to laugh about over dinner.

[damus]

It should be noted the industrial pollution in places like that shown in that photo are being supported by consumers in the USA. The reason the manufacturing is there and not in the USA is because the lack of regulation on pollution reduces the cost of manufacturing these consumer items. The global problem is still primairly one caused by the inhabitants of the USA, it's companies, and government.

It's every free trading country's fault. For consumers it's getting to the point where it's almost impossible to not buy anything not made in a sweatshop. Free trading policies are I guess a mixed bag. The people at the top get richer, while the low skilled workers lose their jobs. How much of this wealth trickles down? I don't know.

Where do go from here now that we seem to be entrenched into this free trading system? It seems like we're living in a kind of bizarro world where slavery has returned, only our slaves are actually better off finanially than they would be had we not gotten involved with them. In the future, will India and China overtake the USA, there's no doubt about that in my mind. Will the USA be kicking itself for enabling the next authoritarian superpower (China) to emerge?

[Recchia]

Anyone here find that picture ironic? All that smog yet EVERY person is riding a bike.

[GRDadof3]

Is there anything or anyone on this planet for whom/which I'm not responsible? Just wondering, because I'm working on balancing my checkbook right now and should set some aside. And I thought the Catholics held the monopoly on guilt.

[runawayjim]

Anyone here find that picture ironic? All that smog yet EVERY person is riding a bike.

i have to say i'd be scared riding a bike in that mess of people... holy crap! what happens if you have to turn and there's 10 rows of other bikers on either side of you?

for the record, it does look like there's a bus of some sort in the right side of the pic near the back of all those bikes...

[g-man430]

I've officially heard it all now. So now we're not only responsible for our own pollution, but the pollution in the rest of the world as well?

Thanks for that. I now have something to laugh about over dinner.

Actually, metro'm is right. We use more oil than any other country in the world so we are contributing to most of the pollution throughout the globe. This is why I drive a toyota prius. It may not be the coolest looking or the fastest car, but on the one saving at the gas pump, bud. Yeah there you guys go again running your mouth about "Oh, this scientific study was done too fast." Are you kidding me. This is the problem with this world. People like Bush just don't get it. How much more evidence do you guys have to see to prove that global warming is real and that both the rainforest destruction and CO2 emissions are causing it. Here is the evidence and my proof: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22...g.ap/index.html

[runawayjim]

Actually, metro'm is right. We use more oil than any other country in the world so we are contributing to most of the pollution throughout the globe. This is why I drive a toyota prius. It may not be the coolest looking or the fastest car, but on the one saving at the gas pump, bud.

i think he was responding to the idea that as we shift our manufacturing to other countries because our environmental restrictions equate to more costly production, that we are responsible for those countries using more oil as well...

we can't be responsible for anyone but ourselves. and car emissions still don't cause the same damage that deforestation does, espcially in the rain forests.