FOX News Channel special report, ": The Case of Global Warming,"

[GENIERE]

Tune into the FOX News Channel special report, ": The Case of Global Warming," on Sunday, Nov. 13, at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. EST.

Fact? Fiction? Hockeystick?

 

[Pengwuino]

What is this, the preview channel?

 

[Andre]

Fact? Fiction? Hockeystick?

Demagogy? fallacies? ratings?

 

[Mk]

Lies perhaps even?

 

[Andre]

Well that's a big word. Don't forget that there once was a hockey stick, an absolute brain paralyser. Only need to look for a second to comprehend that the world was in immediate danger, confirmed with shiploads of confirmation bias, melting glaciers, heat waves, droughts, storms, floods, it doesn't matter what, it's all global warming of course and of course all caused by burning fossile fuel. So, there is noble task to convince mankind. FOX was just late realizing that.

 

[Pengwuino]

did anyone see it?

 

[Andre]

It's probably rather predictable. http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/globalwarmingfaq.htm could be the script, this page once decribes by Stephen McIntyre:

This particular site was used zillions of times on Usenet whenever global warming was "discussed".

I use the "scare quotes" because to describe what goes on on Usenet as "discussion" is like describing global thermonuclear war as "a mild case of suntan"

For a refreshing balance

http://www.iaee.org/documents/05fall.pdf (huge file)

Scroll to page 14. the article:
The Skeptics on the Global Warming Issue: The Distinguished Veterans
By Gerald T. Westbrook

 

[Andre]

The war is on too

One of the problems of global warming that it is not about science, it's about war. Former allies can turn into tomorrows enemies.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/blair_failure_climate.pdf

My sympathy for Tony Blair, upon realizing the scam of global warming, he tries to back off, counting out, however, the brave green warriors.

Who will save us from the world savers?

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

I've taken a fond liking of the world savers :) they help push technology further. So I've joined the bandwagon, there's nothing to lose... cleaner air and better tech.

 

[WhiteWolf]

lol, I saw that, my mom has been a supporter of the global warming arguement, and I went off ranting about how it is a bunch of balogna. Fox reached an all time low, lol. Weather fluctuates, and over the course of centuries time, it can have vast fluctuations in temperature. Glaciers will melt, and then freeze again. You can't treat stuff like that as artwork, it can't be preserved. It may disappear for a period of time, but it will return. Many of these people, just like the person that was ranting on this program last night, doesn't want to let go of stuff like that. Everything will change, it is inevitable, I think they should let go and learn to live with it.

 

[Andre]

I've taken a fond liking of the world savers :) they help push technology further. So I've joined the bandwagon, there's nothing to lose... cleaner air and better tech.

Really? Suppose you have a limited budget for mitigation of environmental impact of anthropogenic energy production and you have two options:

1. build windmills and reduce the overall emission of exhaust gasses.

2. apply filters to remove soot and toxic chemicals from the exhausts.

If you're on the bandwagon you have to go for option one, whilst in reality option two would have been the more effective.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Really? Suppose you have a limited budget for mitigation of environmental impact of anthropogenic energy production and you have two options:
1. build windmills and reduce the overall emission of exhaust gasses.
2. apply filters to remove soot and toxic chemicals from the exhausts.
If you're on the bandwagon you have to go for option one, whilst in reality option two would have been the more effective.

and where does the soot and chemicals go once filtered? stay in the filter forever? Or then get burried into the Earth, causing more pollution? It's either get rid of the problem or keep the problem. If you try and damper it, it still persists. As long as we have energy sources that emit soot and chemicals.. we will always have soot and chemicals floating around somewhere.

 

[GENIERE]

and where does the soot and chemicals go once filtered? stay in the filter forever? Or then get burried into the Earth, causing more pollution? It's either get rid of the problem or keep the problem. If you try and damper it, it still persists. As long as we have energy sources that emit soot and chemicals.. we will always have soot and chemicals floating around somewhere.

Your reasoning requires we eliminate trees, grasses, shrubs…

http://www.life.uiuc.edu/plantbio/wimovac/isoprene.htm

Higher plants are known to emit volatile hydrocarbons such as isoprene and monoterpenes into the atmosphere. The World wide emission rate of these natural hydrocarbons has been estimated to be 1.8-8.3 * 1011 kg y-1 which exceeds that of non methane hydrocarbons originating from human sources. Natural hydrocarbons have been suggested to be responsible for the blue haze found around forested areas on sunny days and the high rural ozone concentration in summer. The study of natural hydrocarbon emissions from plants is therefore of key importance to our understanding of the global effects of atmospherically born hydrocarbons.


.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Your reasoning requires we eliminate trees, grasses, shrubs…
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/plantbio/wimovac/isoprene.htm
Higher plants are known to emit volatile hydrocarbons such as isoprene and monoterpenes into the atmosphere. The World wide emission rate of these natural hydrocarbons has been estimated to be 1.8-8.3 * 1011 kg y-1 which exceeds that of non methane hydrocarbons originating from human sources. Natural hydrocarbons have been suggested to be responsible for the blue haze found around forested areas on sunny days and the high rural ozone concentration in summer. The study of natural hydrocarbon emissions from plants is therefore of key importance to our understanding of the global effects of atmospherically born hydrocarbons.
.

Now let's try and stay on track here... we were talking about human waste, and the effect it has on the environment...the environment works perfectly fine in it's natural state. If my reasoning required eliminating trees, grasses and shrubs.. i would have made it known. That's like saying... well a lake consists of water.. and clouds precipitate on it... yeah but when you start creating artificial clouds and precipitation, you cause unbalance in the environment and the lake overflows. Still the easier path is letting the Earth go on it's natural course, and stopping human emissions/waste as much as is possible, anywhere and everywhere.

 

[Bystander]

Okay, windmills come up. 50 GW installed capacity globally, Europe and U. S. the big users.

Have the climate models been run with this sort of load on circulation in the N. Ferrel cell? Haven't found anything, but haven't tried every conceivable keyword combination as yet.

Order of magnitude, looks to be 0.01% of net solar input (to the N. Ferrel), but whether that's getting into the "significant effect" range is what I was hoping to answer if someone knows of climate models that include wind power loading.

 

[GENIERE]

...the environment works perfectly fine in it's natural state.

Really? I suppose before humans existed there were no species eradication, ice ages, global warmings, floods, hurricanes, tornados… Obviously the natural environment does not “work just fine”. The natural state of the environment is one of constant change with disastrous consequences to one species or another.

.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Really? I suppose before humans existed there were no species eradication, ice ages, global warmings, floods, hurricanes, tornados… Obviously the natural environment does not “work just fine”. The natural state of the environment is one of constant change with disastrous consequences to one species or another.
.

Until you put a humanly expectation or desire on how the environment should act according to you... yes the environment works perfectly fine in it's natural state. Ice ages, species eradication... all natural... all fine. Not until a species starts to unbalance this natural state at catastrophic and extremely dangerous levels do things begin to take perspective. We are now harming the planet because we have gone from a natural force, to an unnnatural force. It's time to go back to natural living. Stop burning chemicals and polluting the atmosphere.. it's not that hard to just say yes. Unless of course you'd like to see just how far we can push mother nature... then I'm sure she can come up with something natural of her own... like species eradication ;) It's all about respect. Just as you'd treat a person good, and expect it back... treat your Home well and you shall be rewarded. Slap it in the face and ignore it's screams for help... and well... we'll only have to wait a few decades to see what the outcome of this one will be, because I'm obviously outnumbered here.(unfortunately) Instead of harming the planet more... we should try and keep it where it has been through the last 5,000 years... even if this means reversing SOME of the "natural?" affects of warming and cooling... but through clean methods. This isn't just a dilemna about whether or not it's causing global warming, we're also destroying the o-zone layer... and i personally like to have a clear view of the stars at night.. the smog doesn't help.

 

[Mk]

The rate of extinction occurring today is highly accelerated due to human interference. Its basically what your first paragraph is saying (you know, if they were divided).
Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans. Termite mounds, beaver dams, and coral reefs all change their environment dramatically, affecting many many other creatures.

Instead of harming the planet more... we should try and keep it where it has been through the last 5,000 years...

Here's a great story that's been shortened and summarized by myself (originally by Michael Chrichton):

Yellowstone Park, the first wilderness to be set aside as a natural preserve anywhere in the world, was called a National Park in 1872, by Ulysses Grant. No one had ever tried to preserve wilderness before, they assumed it would be much easier than it proved to be.
When Theodore Roosevelt visited the park in 1903, he saw a landscape teeming with game. There were thousands of elk, buffalo, black bear, deer, mountain lions, grizzlies, coyotes, wolves, and bighorn sheep. By that time there were rules in place to keep things the way they were. The Park Service was formed, a new bureaucracy whose sole purpose was the maintain the park in its original condition.
Within 10 years, the teeming landscape that Roosevelt saw was gone forever. The reason for this was because of the Park rangers, they were supposed to be keeping the park in pristine condition, and had taken a series of steps that they thought were in the best interest of preserving the park.
The Park Service mistankenly believed that elk were becoming extinct, they tried to increase the elk herds within the park by eliminating predators. To that end, they shot and poisoned all the wolves in the park, of course not intending to kill all of them. They also prohibited local Native Americans from hunting there, even though Yellowstone was a traditional hunting ground.
Totally protected now, the elk herd population exploded and they ate so much of certain trees and grasses, that the ecology of the park began to change. The elk ate defoliated trees that the beavers used to make dams, so the beavers vanished. That was when manages found out that beavers were vital to the overall management of the region. When the beavers vanished, meadows dried up, trout and otter populations receded, soil erosion increased, park ecology changed even further.
By the 1920s, it was clear there were way too many elk, os the rangers shot them by the thousands. The change in plant ecology seemed permanent; the old mix of trees and grasses did not return.
It also became clear that Native American hunters had exerted a valueable ecological influence on the park lands by keeping down the numbers of elk, moose, and bison. This recognition came as a part of a general understanding that the Native Americans strongly shaped the untouched wilderness white men thought they saw.
North American humans had exerted a huge influencee on the environment for thousands of years, by burning palins grasses, modifying forests, thinning out specific animal populations, and hunting others to extinction - capitulation to a superior species.
The rule forbidding Native Americans from hunting was seen as a mistake, but it was just one of many that continued to be made by the Park Service. Grizzlies were protected, then killed off, Wolves were killed off, then brought back. Radio collars research was halted, then resumed. Fire prevention policies were instituted, with no understanding of the regenerative effects of fire. When the policy was reversed, thousands of acres were burned so hotly to the ground that it was sterilized, and forests did not grow back without reseeding. Rainbow trout were introduced in the 70s, that species killed off the native cutthroat species. And on and on and on and on.
It is a history of ignorant, incompetent, intrusive interveintion, followed by disastrous attempts to repair, followed by attempts to repair damage caused by repairs. Just as dramatic as any oil spill or toxic waste dump, but in these ones there are no evil awful big corporations, or fossil fuel economy to blame. These are disasters caused by environmentalists, the very people who wanted to protect the environement, who made one mistake after another.
Passive protection, leaving things alone, doesn't preserve the status quo within a wilderness any more than it does in your backyard. The world is alive, things are constantly in flux. Species are winning, losing, rising, falling, exploding, bottlenecking, taking over, being pushed back. Merely leaving it alone doesn't put it in a state of supsended animation. Its like locking your son or daughter in their bedroom and expecting them not to grow up.
Humans do care what happens to the environment in the future, and try hard. We just don't know what they are doing, period. We haven't made an action that only had postive consequences yet - banning DDT, Solar panels, Water recycling systems for homes, abolishing CFCs.
Why are we interferring with the course of nature? Why do some try to keep it the way it is? Why do some blame humans for changing it? It will change for better or for worse, if we are here are not here. If humans were in this state of development before the last ice age, we would blame each other for causing it.

even if this means reversing SOME of the "natural?" affects of warming and cooling... but through clean methods.

Why would we want to change the course of nature for ourselves? Seems kind of selfish to me. And we might be affecting other species too...

we're also destroying the o-zone layer...

Really? Tell me what you know about this.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

"The rate of extinction occurring today is highly accelerated due to human interference. Its basically what your first paragraph is saying (you know, if they were divided).
Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans"

I never argued that it was something new... But to argue that today it is not caused by humans in any way... is just pure rude antics... Humans as the dominent and intellegent species on this planet have a duty to take care of it. That's my position and i stand strong. You can ignore the problems, or you can take care of them, regardless if we're the culprits or not. We cannot survive in an environment that is going to warm 15 degrees worldwide and flood shorelines and islands.. it might seem selfish to you for me to want and keep the environment the way it is now... but you're entitled to your opinion, whether i understand it or not. You talk about us effecting other species... i think we do enough of that today as it is... let's try and stop doing it. We're not talking about preserving Yellowstone park here, we're talking about preserving humankind and it's environment. Can you tell me how and why the last ice age occurred with precise scientific data?! Or else the statement "if we were around back then, we'd blame each other".. has no substance. Also we were not around back then the way we are today... and the's precisely the differentiating factor here. Now we are here... and unless we want to experience another ice age or global warming catastrophe, we'd better get on our horses and start doing something about it.

 

[Andre]

What is missing in this discussion is the grey. It's neither black nor white. yes humans have considerable impact on nature, No the impact on cimate is extremely small, if at all. Focus on the direct adverse items like pollution and destruction of habitats but forget climate, that's way beyond our scope.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

What is missing in this discussion is the grey. It's neither black nor white. yes humans have considerable impact on nature, No the impact on cimate is extremely small, if at all. Focus on the direct adverse items like pollution and destruction of habitats but forget climate, that's way beyond our scope.

Pollution and the destruction of habitats IS destroying the climate... might be above some of our scopes, but it's as clear as day here. Show me some gray and I'll start researching some more.. I really mean that. Coral reefs... rain forests... species... unbalancing ecosystems, directly effecting climate.

 

[Andre]

No Pollution and the destruction of habitats IS destroying habitats. You cannot destroy climate, there is always climate. Climate is the average weather of a prolongued time. There will always be weather.

But the scope is if an increase of human generated greenhouse gasses will heat up the climate significantly and if so, if we can do anything about it.

The answer is no on the first, making the answer on the second irrelevant But even if the answer to the first was to be yes (which it ain't) then the answer to the second would still be no.

 

[Aneleh]

All we need is to wait for a giant volcanic eruption to cool the Earth down by a few degrees, problem solved...

 

[GENIERE]

Until you put a humanly expectation or desire on how the environment should act according to you... yes the environment works perfectly fine in it's natural state. Ice ages, species eradication... all natural... all fine. Not until a species starts to unbalance this natural state at catastrophic and extremely dangerous levels do things begin to take perspective. We are now harming the planet because we have gone from a natural force, to an unnnatural force. It's time to go back to natural living. Stop burning chemicals and polluting the atmosphere.. it's not that hard to just say yes. Unless of course you'd like to see just how far we can push mother nature... then I'm sure she can come up with something natural of her own... like species eradication ;) It's all about respect. Just as you'd treat a person good, and expect it back... treat your Home well and you shall be rewarded. Slap it in the face and ignore it's screams for help... and well... we'll only have to wait a few decades to see what the outcome of this one will be, because I'm obviously outnumbered here.(unfortunately) Instead of harming the planet more... we should try and keep it where it has been through the last 5,000 years... even if this means reversing SOME of the "natural?" affects of warming and cooling... but through clean methods. This isn't just a dilemna about whether or not it's causing global warming, we're also destroying the o-zone layer... and i personally like to have a clear view of the stars at night.. the smog doesn't help.

Your post is entirely opinionated and has no place in a scientific forum. I suggest the moderator place it in the general discussion forum.


...

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Your post is entirely opinionated and has no place in a scientific forum. I suggest the moderator place it in the general discussion forum.
...

scientific data, must be backed with scientific reason. Reason can be viewed as opinion. If you don't like opinions, i suppose PF would cease to exist. We could all just walk around agreeing with everything, what a perfect world :) Your OPINION about how the ice ages came about didn't bother me. And if you haven't noticed, the basis of this thread is based on opinion backed by scientific data.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Climate is the average weather of a prolongued time. There will always be weather.

Yes... now that you have realized this... can you see that we are destroying the average weather of a prolongued period? There will always be weather... let's think about that before we dismiss it... as long as humans are here we will have to put up with the weather. We cope quite well with the current climate, let's try and keep it that way, no? Look at the long term implications of ignoring the climate changes... whether you think we are to blame or not. Let's just forget about who we are blaming for a second... and look at the problem. The problem is the climate change, and ecosystem destruction. Now let's take a look at all possible culprits and take care of them. Humans do fit in that category. Take some responsibility.

 

[Andre]

dgoodpasture2005,

So far in this thread you have only ventilated the blatant scaremongering of the media. Why don't you scroll down a bit in the Earth forums, find the abundant climate threads, showing the illusion of knowlegde about climate and the futility of attemps to change things. Debunk and refute them with regular accepted scienctific methods (which is a bit more than "you're wrong") and then you would be right coming back here, shouting that we should save climate now.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

dgoodpasture2005,
So far in this thread you have only ventilated the blatant scaremongering of the media. Why don't you scroll down a bit in the Earth forums, find the abundant climate threads, showing the illusion of knowlegde about climate and the futility of attemps to change things. Debunk and refute them with regular accepted scienctific methods (which is a bit more than "you're wrong") and then you would be right coming back here, shouting that we should save climate now.

The words "you're wrong" have not came out of my mouth once... it's more like they're coming coming out of yours... you have your opinion, i have mine... both backed up by scientific data and reasoning, let's have a discussion based on neutrality of the situation, cause at this point neither of us can claim we are right.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

If i am in any way coming off with a "you're wrong" mentality.. you have to take a serious look at the propositions that have been proposed to me... First off, there was putting filters on exhaust... which does nothing to the pollutants being created... but catch them, then release them at a later date, at another place. Secondly, it was proposed and quite bluntly implied, that extinction today has nothing to do with human actions... Thirdly, i was presented with data claiming they knew how the last ice ages came about.. and comparing that to todays crisis.. which was a contridiction in its own... being that we weren't around back then, we couldn't have had any affect on the environment whatsoever. Now we are here!(just three among a number of false propositions) And we are watching ourselves destroy ecosystems, throw off weather patterns because of it.. having species go extinct because of carelessness in logging and polluting. And you're telling me that i should just simply accept all of these statements as truth... when they have no credible evidence or substance whatsoever? I'm trying to analyze and examine the data I'm being presented, but i just can't find anything that has the slightest drop of truth or makes anything remotely close to the word "sense"... it all just looks like a desperate attempt at not taking responsibility of our actions as humanity. Please do not insult my intelligence... i have a neutral standing on all matters... i only examine the evidence. I don't come here to insult, call names, or throw lables on other people("So far in this thread you have only ventilated the blatant scaremongering of the ->media"<-) please either respect my position back... or lose mine altogther... we're grown ups, let's have a grown up discussion.

 

[GENIERE]

... First off, there was putting filters on exhaust... which does nothing to the pollutants being created... but catch them, then release them at a later date, at another place.

Actually Andre is quite correct. the method approximates the `natural’ process of sequestering. Nature sequesters CO2 in plant life, oil, minerals, ocean water, and in many other ways. Logging and the subsequent use of the lumber in construction, prevents the release of CO2 had the tree died naturally and rotted on the ground. Selective logging is a means of sequestering CO2 in regions prone to forest fires. The radioactive waste from natural Uranium fission is sequestered in minerals and slowly released into the environment (yes, nature made nuclear reactors but cannot do so presently having used up the necessary isotopes). Quite possibly humans can learn from nature and improve our methods of sequestering nuclear waste.

Your post is simply opinion; an opinion is correct only if supported by scientific evidence.

Earning my respect would not be much of an achievement, but earning the respect of Andre is indeed a worthy goal. I’m sure he would welcome the exchange of scientific concepts with a knowledgeable antagonist.
.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Actually Andre is quite correct. the method approximates the `natural’ process of sequestering. Nature sequesters CO2 in plant life, oil, minerals, ocean water, and in many other ways. Logging and the subsequent use of the lumber in construction, prevents the release of CO2 had the tree died naturally and rotted on the ground. Selective logging is a means of sequestering CO2 in regions prone to forest fires. The radioactive waste from natural Uranium fission is sequestered in minerals and slowly released into the environment (yes, nature made nuclear reactors but cannot do so presently having used up the necessary isotopes). Quite possibly humans can learn from nature and improve our methods of sequestering nuclear waste.
Your post is simply opinion; an opinion is correct only if supported by scientific evidence.
Earning my respect would not be much of an achievement, but earning the respect of Andre is indeed a worthy goal. I’m sure he would welcome the exchange of scientific concepts with a knowledgeable antagonist.
.

Yeah you're right, I'm done, you're just taking things out of context now and throwing them around... like CONTROLLED logging to prevent fires. You're right, both of you! humans have no impact on the Earth, we'll be just fine doing the things we are.. no need for change, and the proof is all around us ;) have a nice day. And opinion is not always correct if supported by scientific evidence... only if that scientific evidence also supports both sides of the spectrum(you shouldn't only look at things one way, we're here to find answers, not prove who's theory is correct). Which in this case, it's pick and choose on both of your parts because of a pre-existing notion that we aren't doing anything to harm the environment, and an undying hatred for the media, and anyone who uses any word ever said by them(regardless if they're copying the media or not, which I wasn't... I was simply examining the evidence you were throwing at me.. and coming to sensible scientific and logical conclusions). Take a look at ALL the evidence, not just what you think will win your side of the argument... neutrality, 3rd party perspective. Yes, all of what you say is true... but only because you apply it to your perspective, which is biased... as soon as i have a say, it doesn't hold... as previously shown. I know how nature works independent of human interference... unfortunately, that's not what is in question here. This is a serious matter, and should be viewed from an outsiders perspective, free of biases and pre-existing opinion or emotions. Just be an observer of the information, not a politician. No one is running for president here, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.. stand down.