's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

More of the same hysteria(10 posts)

More of the same hysteriaBikeViking
Mar 20, 2002 11:49 AM
More proof that you see what you want to seeretro
Mar 20, 2002 12:16 PM
I dunno, man--you read that and think, "Global warming is a huge scam promoted by the environmental cabal" or something, and I read it and think, "We're really hosing ourselves here and nobody's taking it seriously."
It may be true that nobody knows all the causes of warming, but there's no doubt outside the Bush administration and the oil industry (or is that redundant?) that it's real. Still, we're going to do nothing for another 50 years while we "study" it.
Mar 21, 2002 7:02 AM
BV keeps posting unsourced 'scientific' reports from what appear to be the non-mainstream scientific/press - perhaps they are commissioned by teh oik industry to write these reports

he has not addressed why Bush should ignore (his own) scientists and avoid Kyoto

I refer BV again to the doctors who insisted for years that smoking was healthy

you can always find (pay) someone to support what you want to support

warnings about global warming from the bulk of the scientific community should be heeded - whatever the costs to the (US) economy
What is soot? Not really described in the article.Brooks
Mar 21, 2002 8:08 AM
Particulates from burning oil, gas, coal and wood? So, in addition to carbon dioxide, man-made causes of global warming should include soot? Why is this "more of the same hysteria"? Pull your head out of the sand! Did you also see that a huge chunk of ice (Larsen B, I believe it is called) the size of Rhode Island and hundreds of feet thick just broke off from Antartica? This ice has been around for thousands of years and now is free floating (and melting). Directly caused by man-made global warming? Hard to tell as the complexities of climatic change are great. You know that if business and industry (and governments) looked at long-term viability instead of short-term profits that new methods of doing business, new inventions, more efficient energy usage (solar), would still keep your standard of living high without jeopardizing your planet.
death penaltyStarliner
Mar 21, 2002 8:58 AM
I would gather that many of the doubters of environmental issues such as global warming are supporters of the death penalty in cases of murder and maybe even treason. Then I would think they would agree that if floods, drought, famine, and deaths result in future years due in part to the negligence and resistance of the current leadership, then the descendants of those leaders (assuming they are dead) should be subject to punishment, such as stripping them of their property and wealth at the very least.

I would imagine that if Bush had such a consideration to deal with in his decisionmaking, he'd be a little less concerned about preserving profits now and more focused upon protecting the planet.
funny, LOL - nmMJ
Mar 21, 2002 9:19 AM
re: More of the same hysteriaBikeViking
Mar 21, 2002 9:52 AM
The overall controversy is whether you believe the overall surface temperature readings or the satellite/balloon collected readings. There is no argument that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The question is what effect is it having on the planet? Why does the UN IPCC have to be right? You have to admit there are other studies that tell a different tale.

The cigarette analogy is correct regarding the false truth told for so long, but just because something MIGHT happen (evidence is conflicting) doesn't mean we need to administer a cure that could be worse than the disease.

If this is SO dire, why aren't ALL nations required to lower their CO2 emissions? Whay are "tree credits" being given if the CO2 "pollutant" levels are so dangerous. There is a lot of wheeling and dealing with this Kyoto protocol and none of it has to do with the helping the environment.

NOAA excerpt... (the figures didn't make it the post)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has analyzed postwar temperature trends in the Unites States and found similar results; see Figure 8. The largest warming in the last three decades occurs in winter (January through March) which is the time of year in which severity and presence of the cold high pressure systems that form in northwestern North America largely determine the winter departure from normal. Late summer and early fall temperatures actually show a slight decline.

Figure 8. Seasonal changes since 1966 in the U.S. record, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NOAA has also analyzed U.S. temperatures back to 1895. Even though this record contains some large cities with artificial urban warming there is no statistically significant warming in the overall record (see figure 9).

Figure 9. There is no statistically significant overall warming trend in the record of U.S. temperatures, which is 105 years long.

The record can be broken down decadally, i.e., 1895-1997, 1905-1997, 1915-97, etc...Only one of these combinations shows a significant warming that would exceed the Frye Rule of disqualification for "junk science" (i.e. at the .05 level), and that is the period 1965-present. The chance that one trend (out of the ten possible ones) would show a warming is statistically common, even at this probability level. It is noteworthy that NOAA, in the report on climate change that served as the basis for figure 8, "chose" the only period (1965-97) in the entire 105-year record that showed statistically significant warming. Later decadal periods (i.e. 1975-97, or 1985-97) do not; and neither does any earlier period. Perhaps an appropriate question would be to ask why the only such period out of the ten possible ones was selected for analysis and publicity.

Here's the link for the rest of the article:


I lke stuff you can get a hold on.muncher
Mar 22, 2002 1:24 AM
Take a look at the snow level in European ski restorts - where it is now and where it used to be. It's getting warmer.
Mar 22, 2002 1:32 AM
perhaps, Antarctica

this is the whole problem BV - we mention global warming - and you pull out a US weather chart which covers 105 years -covering very little time and, as I've been banging my head against a wall in our other discussions, the US is not the world

don't look at the US look at the polar caps - that's where you measure stuff from for science rather than discussion

Kyoto is a flexible document - that's nothing to be scared of - it tries to deal with the issues in a mature, 21st century manner while taking into account economic imperatives
Mar 22, 2002 8:38 AM

I do not think the US is the "world", but it seems you think we are all "cowboys". We are each entitled to our opinions, but we also do not believe that we should kowtow to whatever the UN says we should. Just because the UN says so does not make it right. We have gone along with other matters (peacekeeping forces for one), but you give us no credit for them.

I have seen Australian studies that show no significant rise in surf levels. The link above show that we may be going through another "warming" period.

The polar caps are thinning and thickening at the same, depending on where you look.

Kyoto wants us to cut emissions, but developing nations don't have to? How come Russia, China and India get a pass (make no emission reductions) and some countries get to INCREASE their emissions (Norway, Iceland and New Zealand)? It seems the rules for correcting this "impending catastrophe" are based more on economics, not science. If the greenhouse gases are so bad, we ALL should be doing something about it and there should not be any exceptions for economic condition.

We are both banging our heads against a wall, but methinks neither one of us will change.

BUT, it is good intellectual exercise to actually have to validate your points in disagreements. (even though we each think the other's validations are crap!) :o)