Hi everyone, I just read through the "Global Warming: The Politics and Science and Fear" post and got something out of it but it wasn't as "efficient" a learning experience as I had hoped. Anyway, let's assume that one side of the GW argument is represented pretty well by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. And even if many on that side admit that it exaggerates the case in parts, or maybe doesn't go far enough in parts, it's not far off the general argument on that side. I'd like to be directed to an article that does equal justice to the other side of the argument. Namely, that GW is happening but it's not the big deal it's being made out to be. I read a few articles posted by Sandy, but usually earlier than halfway through the agenda was clear. I'm looking for one that is not clearly right-wing biased, but uses facts to counter some of the cliches the AG/IT propenents throw out all the time. Thanks
I'm sure you can get a right winger to say Global Warming is an international hoax and that it is friendly for our environment to emit toxins into our atmosphere around the clock.
I have had plenty of great articles by well-respected global experts but I can't post anything that doesn't support GW or I will get more infractions.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sure, go ahead. (Thank goodness I got to post number 20. I can finally start PMing!) P.S.: Why would you get banned? Seriously, if they're from actual scientists, then I can't see how anybody on these forums (unless they were some sort of scientists on this kind of topic themselves) could respond.
Actually, she misstated the situation (as usual). She had become rather obnoxious by posting every single cold weather aberration she could find - like a record snowfall somewhere. Several of us, including those who believe climate change is real, tried to explain to her that isolated events meant very little when compared to the overall average. She just never seemed to understand that simple fact. :shrug:
>> I can't post anything that doesn't support GW or I will get more infractions.>> Climate of FEAR !!!! >>> She had become rather obnoxious >... to whom ? you ya idiot! >> Several of us >>> all cast in stone, popularists.... LOL idiots, anti-scientific.... BTW this is supposed to be a science forum... LOL, with no scientists ! great forum
Hey I can't even post in some threads... oooh I am a definite freak, LOL, pulling apart religious science. I have been here (on this -planet) for some time, sorry the quality of intellect is no where near high enough for cretins to have such anti-scientific attitudes. Even lower; it must be an ego problem at the top, like really LOW.
Nope, I never gave her a single infraction, just tried to explain 'averages' to her - with no response. But your just having called me an idiot (for no reason) just got YOU one. :bugeye:
LOL, one upmanship eh! You must be quite paranoid. Oh is that another... I was never talking to you, oh BTW who are you ? Insignificant creature to me, lad.
Still no articles of an alternative view to Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. Anything... just so I can say I gave the other side a chance.... Or maybe somone a little less biased can choose one of Sandy's from the other thread that is the most factual?
Putting together an actual response to Al Gore's obsession of several years, equivalent to that presentation he's been honing in dozens of public venues and correcting with the best advice and help, would be a hell of a lot of work. If you pick one thing at a time - say the use of graphs and pictures, or the assertions regarding invasive insects, or the CO2/ temp correlation mechanism, you might have better luck.
Anybody curious in hearing the other side, here you go http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html After reading through it all, human contribution to the greenhouse effect is 0.28%
Indeed you were! I was my statement about her being obnoxious that you included in your reply. Ahhh, but not nearly as insignificant as you are to me. I've seen your version of "science" here in many places and it plainly stinks. Mostly distortions and twisted facts.
Excellent link there Jeff, thanks! Remember, the percentage of CO2 in the total atmosphere is about 0.038%. And of that tiny fraction another small fraction comes from human industrial sources...the vast majority is from natural sources.
Assuming the 0.038% figure is correct, we then need to ask: how much additional carbon dioxide would lead to climate change?
According to the observatories at Mauna Loa and elsewhere, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by more than a third (as much as a half, or even more) in the past couple of hundred years, and essentially all of that accumulation is from fossil fuel combustion. None of the recent accumulation is from "natural" sources, as far as can be determined from isotope analysis. So although the majority of the total is from "natural" sources, it is not a "vast" majority. Nor is the accumulation insignificant, either proportionately or in its potential effects. The recent accumulation would be enough, according to basic physics, to raise the lower atmosphere temperatures by much more than they have in fact been raised, according to direct temperature measurements, so other factors must be countering or damping the CO2 effects. That is not surprising, as climate is a very complex system. That intuitively small natural concentration of CO2 is the main difference between a planet with liquid water on the surface and a planet covered with ice and snow. The addition of another 50% to that concentration will probably have at least proportionate effects. Jeff's link, above, contains one statement directly at odds with data available elsewhere - that the accumulation of CO2 recently is from "natural" sources. The isotope analysis from Mauna Loa says otherwise. It contains, more importantly, a serious deception: that water vapor is independent of CO2. Without the CO2 concentration, there would be little or no water vapor in the air - it would be frozen out, and part of the solid ground. With the extra warming from CO2, more water vaper can accumulate in the air (hot air holds more water) and its heat trapping effects amplify the CO2 direct effects. Extra evaporation and retention of water vapor is one of the serious possible effects of CO2 accumulation. The climate is more or less in equilibrium as far as water vaper is concerned, at any given time - the oceans are large, water is always available. Temporary increases in atmospheric water vapor fall as rain and snow elsewhere, condense as dew and are absorbed, create storms that carry them over dry land as rain, etc. Extra water vapor does not accumulate by itself and drive the system to other equilibria, cause increases in CO2 or other greenhouse gasses, etc. The climate is apparently (so far as we can tell) being driven out of its old equilibrium by human source CO2. It is not being taken out, it is affecting water vapor and other factors, and it is accumulating. re flaws: Gore's movie is a work of persuasive rhetoric, not science, so the flaws would be not scientific but in persuasion - leaving a definitely false impression, somehow. Deceiving. The only major one I can think of is the impression lots of people got that it was CO2 increases that started and controlled past warming trends. That is unlikely, and the actual situation much more complicated. Gore didn't actually say that, but the way he said what de did say seems to have left that impression frequently.
