The emails are surely not bunk. You can't tell me that if these where emails between oil company funded scientists there would not be a head hunt going for them right now.

Here is a link to the story out of russia.

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

Last edited by Opmod (2009-12-18 08:34:31)

checkout the Georgia Guidestones (in the conspiracy forum)....this bullshit is what turned me off to the whole "environmental movement" hippocracy.

wouldn't it be great if the average man could get rich off something positive?

One of the techniques the anti-science propagandists like those who deny man-made warming, or those who are creationists or conspiracy theorists, use is the argument based on the few doubts. Because they want to doubt, they pick any single piece of a vast body of evidence that is unclear and claim it ruins the whole thing. They add this piece to a small clutch of evidence that is not even coherent, and then claim two equal sides. Their side maybe totally unprovable, irrational and inconsistent, but they believe the exception disproves the rule. Because they want to. The fact is, there was doubt, legitimate scientific doubt in the 80s. There is no longer.

Vested interests like oil companies tend to blow the unclear, rare exceptions up because they want to save their industry. They seed it into the media. But the data is in, whatever tiny doubts you can come up with, questions which come from ignorance of the total global picture, the staggering weight of evidence is on man-made Global Climate Change. As I said before, there is not a single climatologist of any repute on the doubting side. But lets say you found one. So what? It remains the vast, staggering majority are clear about it.

Incidentally, Russia stands a great deal of gain from letting Global Climate Change progress unhindered. Again, NASA confirms, among others, this is the warmest decade on record. The reality is the religion is on the "doubter's" side because for decades, they have refused the science. They are fast growing extinct because they are the church arguing against Galileo. 

http://www.itsallpolitics.com/post1511.html#p1511

Are you suggesting they don't get paid if they don't all agree global warming is man-made? When did their pay begin depending on vouching for man-made climate change? Could you document this development of pay attached to the right "conclusions?" Oil interests definitely stand to lose billions and they have shown in the past their willingness to do everything they can against say autos that don't need gas.

Mars? It is warming? Sorry, you will need to back that up, for starters, then you will have to explain what that has to do with earth.

Interdisciplinary rivalry? Jealousy of one department getting grants over another. What a shock. Sorta like when you meet military guys, they put down guys from the other services. I wonder what your biochemist would say if I said to him, "Well, I've got this question about biochemistry, so I gotta go meet this climatologist." I know when I want to know about teeth, I always go to a podiatrist.

The last year could undermine global warming, didja say? Record cold? Your biochemist tell you that?

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

"2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

I see little evidence that the conclusion of man-made global warming was based on little evidence. But let's see your "equal" doubter's evidence.

1) Climatologists are involved in a worldwide conspiracy to get funding for their departments.
2) Mars is (supposedly) getting warmer, which (supposedly) has something to do with earth.
3) Your biochemist friends say the other non-climatologists don't believe the climatologists and it is all about grant money.
4) 2009 had record cold...

Okay, conspiracy, something about Mars, the biochemist is pissed and a "fact" that actually is wrong.

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier:

One of the techniques the anti-science propagandists like those who deny man-made warming, or those who are creationists or conspiracy theorists, use is the argument based on the few doubts. Because they want to doubt, they pick any single piece of a vast body of evidence that is unclear and claim it ruins the whole thing. They add this piece to a small clutch of evidence that is not even coherent, and then claim two equal sides. Their side maybe totally unprovable, irrational and inconsistent, but they believe the exception disproves the rule. Because they want to. The fact is, there was doubt, legitimate scientific doubt in the 80s. There is no longer.

OK 'splain this :

The Northwest Passage is a sea route that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. In the past the Northwest Passage has been virtually impassable because it is covered by thick, year-round sea ice. However, satellite and other monitoring confirm that the Arctic sea ice is declining in both thickness and extent.

The potential benefits of a clear Northwest Passage are significant. Ship routes from Europe to Japan, China and other eastern destinations would be 4000 kilometers (2500 miles) shorter. Oil produced in Alaska could move quickly by ship to eastern North American and European markets. The vast mineral resources of the Canadian North will be much easier and economical to develop. This opportunity for expedient shipping between the Atlantic and Pacific is one of just a very small number of benefits that global warming might produce.

Arctic Sea Ice is Melting

There has been a progressive, year-by-year decline in the thickness and extent of Arctic sea ice. The images at right compare Arctic sea ice concentrations between 1979 and 2003. The top image shows the minimum sea ice concentration for 1979 and the bottom shows the minimum sea ice concentration for 2003. It is very clear in these images that the amount of Arctic sea ice was much lower in 2003. This decline continues.

NASA funded studies have shown that year-round, sea ice in the Arctic is declining at a rate of several percent per decade. As the ice cover is removed, solar radiation penetrates the water and warms it, instead of being reflected from the white ice.

Time Trends of the Arctic sea ice decline. The black line shows the decline rate for maximum sea ice cover (March) and the red line for minimum sea ice cover (September). The decline rate for minimum cover averages 7% per decade. NASA Image.
nother factor that contributes to warming of the Arctic Oceans is the increase in discharge rates of rivers draining Eurasia. These fresh water rivers now receive increasing runoff from melting glaciers. This runoff is much warmer than the Arctic Ocean water. The net result is a slight warming of the Arctic Ocean waters and a dilution of salinity.


http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml

Last edited by freethinker (2010-01-30 13:12:57)

Could you hit me up with a link on the Daily Mail bit?

I would argue this isn't because the enviroment has become a religion... but it has become an ideology that people can (and will) exploit for various reasons. If there's a buck to be made or five minutes of fame to be had, people will pour all their energy into it.

Too many idealogues are on each side - none in any greater number then the other - and at this point, I don't even understand what we're debating anymore.

Why can't we just do things because it's the RIGHT thing to do?

• Oil is a limited resource and pollutes the air with SOx and COx compounds that are harmful to our health, so we should reduce consumption and dependence on it. Period.

• The region that we get oil from is volitile... so let's not give them money to screw us over with. And let's not spend that money on domestic sources because we shouldn't be depending on them either.

• Alternative energy sources (wind, solar, hydrogen) aren't ready to replace oil. Nuclear is... so use it. Also, expand natrual gas mining because (A) it's less enviromentally damaging to extract then oil, (B) we've got quite a bit and (C) we need to increase our exports.

• Clean coal doesn't exist. Stop using the term.

• Don't create a carbon "Cap & Tax" system... ESPECIALLY in this economy.

But these are measures that are either too lienient for enviromental extremists or too strict for Big Oil and its supporters.

It makes me so angry I wanna spit!

Last edited by Abraxas (2010-02-09 01:17:54)

Well, the science is on the global warming side and not on the ideology of the anti-side. Still, whatever reasons, and you list great ones, I totally agree. That does not mean I'm saying that environmentalists don't have their ideological side. Yes, they refuse to accept that nuclear is cleaner. They would also agree with you that clean coal does not exist, though it might be possible. I agree, though, that it is hardly worth pursuing.

But you've missed the one true ideological fixation of environmentalists, mainly because you reject the science and accept the claims of doubt that there is global warming. There are actually technologies that could be applied to remove CO2. Developed over years they might actually be useful. But environmentalists insist against it because they are fixated on the reduction angle.

No doubt I've pissed off everyone. What can I do?

Last edited by cybert (2010-02-10 00:04:13)

Whereas the claims by the energy industry are to be believed without question.

Got it.

I get both sides of the argument: making money off climate change means you'll be promoting the extinction of the earth. On the other hand, if there is no money in it -- then there's no incentive for people to actually try to fix it.