Page 3 of 5

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:41 pm
by Gman
Geeez, what time is it back there? You guys staying up late for my response? The sun hasn't set here yet and already I've got two responses to deal with.. :lol:

August, coming from sources such as the Capitalism Magazine, I don't know about you but I feel a corporate bent here... No offense, but that seems a bit too right for me... Ok, I know that you might say that my sources are leftist too... Maybe we can find some common ground here later.
If you think it's coincidence that the earth is hotter when the Sun is hotter, good for you.


Jac, I'm not sure if I understand you.. I don't think it's a coincidence that the earth is hotter when the Sun is hotter. That is the question I proposed to you.

Anyways, like you said it's a politically hot potato. You have your resources and I have mine... I guess we will have to wait to see who was right later on...

All the best, from sunny California...

G -

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:42 pm
by August
As ever, Scripture has something to say on the matter too:
(Gen 8:22) While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:57 pm
by August
Gman wrote:Geeez, what time is it back there? You guys staying up late for my response? The sun hasn't set here yet and already I've got two responses to deal with.. :lol:

August, coming from sources such as the Capitalism Magazine, I don't know about you but I feel a corporate bent here... No offense, but that seems a bit too right for me... Ok, I know that you might say that my sources are leftist too... Maybe we can find some common ground here later.
If you think it's coincidence that the earth is hotter when the Sun is hotter, good for you.


Jac, I'm not sure if I understand you.. I don't think it's a coincidence that the earth is hotter when the Sun is hotter. That is the question I proposed to you.

Anyways, like you said it's a politically hot potato. You have your resources and I have mine... I guess we will have to wait to see who was right later on...

All the best, from sunny California...

G -
Hi Gman, what do you prefer? I was just presenting the summaries. And to be fair, many of those stories quote respectable scientists.

If you prefer, you can refer to this study, page 18, which shows the small impact humans have on CO2 emissions:
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdr ... 057301.pdf

Here is a study that confirms the increased heat from the sun:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet ... s&gifs=Yes

Here is a study that shows from tree rings that the solar cycle is responsible for heating and cooling on the planet:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sc ... N15/C1.jsp

Here is a petition signed by more than 17,000 scientists that deny global warming is caused by humans:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

Here is the take from NASA's Global Hydrology and Climate Centre:
http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html

Are those objective enough?

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:59 pm
by Jac3510
No, you asked me if it was a coincidence that the earth was getting hotter when CO2 levels were up. I asked you if it was a coincidence that the earth was hotter when the sun was.

Seriously, G, I don't care about global warming. What I care about is leftist rhetoric, like this inane movie. I'll try to conserve gas to save some cash, and I'll recycle because there is no reason not to and we are supposed to be stewards over what God has given us. In the meantime, this world will still be here, like August has beautifully pointed out. It will be here until Jesus come back, and then He'll fix everything, so forgive me for not being at all concerned.

And now it is time for bed. Haha, God bless! :)

edit: LOL - sometimes you have the most beautiful posts ever, August. Good stuff . . . good stuff. In my previously edited post, I told G that he ought to just take this up with you, because I don't really care enough to offer object evidence. My rejection is 1) political (I hate the rhetoric) and 2) theological (global warming won't kill us all).

Again, good stuff :D

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:16 pm
by Gman
Ok, well here are some of my resources..

Evironmental defense:
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/index ... rch_fgwadc
EPA Global Warming site:
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/United Nations Environment Programme:
http://www.unep.ch/
Global Warming Update: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/globalwarming.html
Global Warming: Focus on the Future: http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/edf/
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast: http://www.edf.org/pubs/Brochures/GlobalWarming/
The U.S. Global Change Research Information Exchange Office: http://gcrio.ciesin.org/
Public Perceptions of Global Warming: http://www.gcrio.org/ASPEN/science/eoc9 ... OC2-2.html
World Climate Report: http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/
World Wildlife Fund Climate Change Campaign: http://www.panda.org/climate/
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme: http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/
Global Warming Games: http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/edf/games/index.html
Global Warming and Climate Change: http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/toc.html
Global Warming: Myth vs. fact: http://www.edf.org/pubs/FactSheets/e_GWFact2.html
Nrdc.org
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp
Global Warming, Lessons from the Past?: http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/cret. ... coals.html
Global Warming Workshop: http://www.middlebury.edu/~rosenber/DR- ... obwar.html
Chemistry 110 CHEMISTRY AND ISSUES IN THE ENVIRONMENT (Elmhurst College): http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcou ... ue197.html

Are those objective enough?

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:22 pm
by Gman
No, you asked me if it was a coincidence that the earth was getting hotter when CO2 levels were up. I asked you if it was a coincidence that the earth was hotter when the sun was.
Go to sleep Jac... You're getting tired.

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:27 am
by August
Gman wrote:Ok, well here are some of my resources..

Evironmental defense:
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/index ... rch_fgwadc
EPA Global Warming site:
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/United Nations Environment Programme:
http://www.unep.ch/
Global Warming Update: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/globalwarming.html
Global Warming: Focus on the Future: http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/edf/
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast: http://www.edf.org/pubs/Brochures/GlobalWarming/
The U.S. Global Change Research Information Exchange Office: http://gcrio.ciesin.org/
Public Perceptions of Global Warming: http://www.gcrio.org/ASPEN/science/eoc9 ... OC2-2.html
World Climate Report: http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/
World Wildlife Fund Climate Change Campaign: http://www.panda.org/climate/
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme: http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/
Global Warming Games: http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/edf/games/index.html
Global Warming and Climate Change: http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/toc.html
Global Warming: Myth vs. fact: http://www.edf.org/pubs/FactSheets/e_GWFact2.html
Nrdc.org
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp
Global Warming, Lessons from the Past?: http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/cret. ... coals.html
Global Warming Workshop: http://www.middlebury.edu/~rosenber/DR- ... obwar.html
Chemistry 110 CHEMISTRY AND ISSUES IN THE ENVIRONMENT (Elmhurst College): http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcou ... ue197.html

Are those objective enough?
Gman, if you are going to attempt to debate this, at least be honest about it. You just lifted a series of links from another website and posted it here, without even reading what your own links say. How do I know this? Because around one-third of the links you provide are dead links, to pages or servers that do not exist any more. I'd like to think otherwise, but this leads me to think that you really have no interest in discussing the scientific merits of global warming, you just have a political axe to grind and you do this by "elephant hurling".

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:49 am
by Canuckster1127
Well, here's my links and sources.

I tend to discount those sources at either extreme that either advocate that there is no truth to global warming at all, or appear using it as an issue to promote radical environmentalism.

http://www.citizenjoe.org/sub_tpl.php?sid=25 Is my primary source here and I think it provides some good resources and links.

Climate Change
facts


Few dispute the planet is getting warmer, yet scientists don't all agree on how much humans are responsible for heating things up or on what the effects of a few added degrees to our atmosphere will be. Some predict the worst: flooding, changing weather patterns and even, although remotely, bringing on an early ice age — and they say that humans are largely responsible by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests. Others say the warnings on global warming are overstated and warn instead that curbing emissions too quickly could end up hurting the American economy and doing little to change the weather. Two policies that are still hanging around for debate are the Kyoto Accords, an international agreement that sets high standards for emissions limits and which the US has not signed on to, and the Climate Stewardship Act, a bill currently in the Senate that would set less aggressive emissions curbs than Kyoto.


General

How much the planet's warming:
Over the past century: 0.5° - 1° F (EPA)
(Note: most of the warming happened before 1940 when temperatures leveled off. Since the 70's surface temperatures have risen again, but not all scientists agree that temperatures in the atmosphere have risen as well.) (EPA and another page from the EPA)
Over the next 50 years: 1° - 4.5° (EPA)
Over the next 100 years: 2.2° - 10° F (EPA)
What's the green house effect?
It's what keeps the earth from being a cool place - the effect of gases in the atmosphere trapping the sun's heat before it bounces back into space, similar to what glass in a green house does. The gases that hold most of the heat are known as green house gases. Here's a graphic from Pew.
How much are humans contributing to global warming?
This is the crux of the debate. Everyone agrees green house gases trap the sun's heat. Everyone also agrees that there are more green house gases in the atmosphere now than there were 150 years ago and that the industrial revolution has a lot to do with that. But, because the earth has its own natural cycles of warming and cooling, scientists disagree on how much the current warming comes from the added gases or from just plain old nature.
Major green house gases, how much they contribute to warming and where they come from (EPA) (Note: because methane and nitrous oxide hold much more heat than carbon dioxide, the percentages below take into account their heat holding effect.):
Carbon dioxide: 83% (almost entirely all comes from fossil fuels);
Methane: 10% (mostly from landfills, natural gas systems and, um, animal digestion);
Nitrous oxide: 7% (mostly from fertilizers;)
Other green house gases have a very small impact.
How much fossil fuels contribute to green house gas emissions (EPA):
Carbon dioxide: 98% comes from fossil fuels;
Methane: 24% comes from fossil fuels;
Nitrous oxide: 18% comes from fossil fuels;
Total: about 85%.
Other - possibly connected - changes over the last century (EPA):
Sea levels have risen 4-8 inches;
Annual rainfall has risen 1%;
Some places getting wetter - others drier (IPCC).
Potential negative effects predicted with climate change:
More water will evaporate, which means more rain and likely more intense rainstorms (EPA);
Soil moisture will likely decline in many areas (EPA);
Sea level will likely rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast (EPA) in the next century and possibly 23 feet in next few centuries (EPA);
More heat waves (EPA).
Potential benefits:
Longer growing seasons (Pew).
Abrupt or "nonlinear" changes:
Because small changes in temperature can tip off large changes in the weather and environment, scientists warn that some effects of global warming are unpredictable. In the short term ecosystems and farming could be thrown out of whack (IPCC). In the long term (over a hundred years away), it's anyone's guess (NRC).
What IPCC says. Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the most widely cited report on global warming, we thought it would be useful to quote what exactly they say about warming:
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
"Projected climate change will have beneficial and adverse effects on both environmental and socio-economic systems, but the larger the changes and rate of change in climate, the more the adverse effects predominate."
For an analysis of how warming could hurt or help our economy, see Pew's Market Consequences report. The upshot: it could add or take away up to 0.6% of GDP over the next 100 years. You can also see the fed's latest findings on global warming in their August 2004 report Our Changing Planet.

Climate Stewardship Act

What the act calls for:
The latest version of the act, SA 2028, would cap CO2 emissions at 2000 levels by 2010 and would also set up systems for industry to "trade" emissions.
What the economic costs of the act would be on the economy (There are three studies that come to different conclusions):
In 2025: $76 billion (1996 dollars) would be lost from our gross domestic product (EIA) (1996 dollars) (0.4% of GDP);
In 2025: 0.02% of GDP will be lost (MIT, as reported by Pew);
In 2025: $164 billion would be lost a year (CRA).
How that pans out to costs per household:
$525 per household in 2010; $1043 per household in 2020 (CRA);
$15 per household in 2010; $19 per household in 2020 (MIT, as reported by Pew).
You can tell we like Pew - they're a little left of center, but they aim toward balance. For more background on the Climate Stewardship Act, we recommend their fairly detailed overview of Climate Stewardship Act and their responses to the MIT study, the CRA report, and the EIA report.

To see other steps states in the U.S. and across the world are taking to curb emissions, see this chart from Pew.

Where the facts are from:

CRA - Charles River Associates - consulting firm http://www.crai.com/
EIA - Energy Information Administration - government site http://www.eia.doe.gov/
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency - government site http://www.epa.gov/
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - international research group http://www.ipcc.ch/
NRC - National Research Council - part of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit research institute http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/
Pew - Pew Center on Global Climate Change - nonprofit research organization http://www.pewclimate.org/

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:08 am
by August
Bart, as I have said before, there is some dispute as to whether the planet on a global level is getting warmer or not. What is not much disputed is that some regions are getting warmer.

The big point of contention is whether this regional warming is in a large part due to human activity or not, and as your post points out, that issue remains unresolved in the face of the hundreds of variables that determine climatic changes.

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:29 am
by Canuckster1127
August wrote:Bart, as I have said before, there is some dispute as to whether the planet on a global level is getting warmer or not. What is not much disputed is that some regions are getting warmer.

The big point of contention is whether this regional warming is in a large part due to human activity or not, and as your post points out, that issue remains unresolved in the face of the hundreds of variables that determine climatic changes.
I would disagree.

There is no question that global warming is taking place. The question is the degree, if any, to which human activity is contributing to it. There are regional variations, but the overall increase in terms of global average is hard fact and not deniable by any reasonable examination.

As is typical in this situation there are multiple systems at work, which tend to be counter-acting and self-balancing and there is always a danger that the analysis on any one system will be isolated and extrapolated out to dire conclusions which fail to account for the balances already naturally in place.

The question for me is, is it reasonable to deny the situation and not act until all facts are known and proven to a skeptic's satisfaction?

I say it is not reasonable; particularly when the prescribed course appears to be a reduction in emissions, and the development of cleaner sources of energy which have direct benefits which we already are aware of and see the need.

I reject the extremes on both sides.

I believe there is enough evidence to raise concern and when you compound that with the emissions increases which we know are coming, the time to seek to respond is now and as a Christian I see it as very much a part of our responsibility of stewardship.

We're dealing with macro systems here. The effects and implications are long term. In view of that, I think both the catastrophic doomsayers who utilize fear to promote a political agenda and those who advocate sticking their heads in the sand and denying there's a problem are doing us all a disservice.

It's entirely reasonable that human activity has an impact on the environment and where that impact can be limited or reversed to our own benefit it behooves us to do so.

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:43 am
by Jbuza
gone

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:48 am
by Canuckster1127
Jbuza wrote:
http://www.citizenjoe.org/sub_tpl.php?sid=25

Some predict the worst: flooding, changing weather patterns and even, although remotely, bringing on an early ice age — and they say that humans are largely responsible by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.

Sorry I don't mean to intrude on your conversation, but this struck me as quite funny. When was the ice age scheduled to arrive that we are going to cause it to be early?

LOL ha ha ha
Well, the context of that quote from the site and my use of it is that that position is quite extreme and unsubstantiated.

My point is that misuse of information by one group does not justify ignoring the information and not seeking to understand it rightly and reasonably.

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:24 am
by August
Canuckster1127 wrote:
August wrote:Bart, as I have said before, there is some dispute as to whether the planet on a global level is getting warmer or not. What is not much disputed is that some regions are getting warmer.

The big point of contention is whether this regional warming is in a large part due to human activity or not, and as your post points out, that issue remains unresolved in the face of the hundreds of variables that determine climatic changes.
I would disagree.

There is no question that global warming is taking place. The question is the degree, if any, to which human activity is contributing to it. There are regional variations, but the overall increase in terms of global average is hard fact and not deniable by any reasonable examination.
I quote from the NASA site above:
GHCC scientists have compiled two decades of data showing how atmospheric temperature has behaved over the entire globe. All matter emits microwave radiation that varies with its temperature, among other factors. Microwave sensors on weather satellites can take more than 60,000 temperature measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere, from the surface to about 10 km (6 mi) altitude. The story that these measurements tell is more complex than simply saying the Earth is warming or cooling. Temperatures in the lower troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere where we live) have shown a series of ups and downs since 1979, mostly in a ±0.4oC band, with negligible trends over that period. This contrasts with surface thermometers that show warming during the same period of time. The 1997-98 El Nino caused strong lower tropospheric warming in late 1997, and record warmth in February 1998. Satellite measurements of the lower stratosphere reveal two marked warm periods (as much as 1.5oC warmer), caused by sulfuric acid aerosols deposited in this layer by the eruptions of two large volcanoes. These two warm periods are superimposed upon a strong cooling trend over the 19-year period that has been attributed to ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere. In 1997, record low stratospheric temperatures were recorded. This is an ongoing research effort that will have greater impact as more data are collected and analyzed.
Other studies agree:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Contrary to popular myth the Earth is not warming significantly, according to new research published last month in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists with the universities of Rochester and Virginia.

The reports note two important findings that run counter to the view that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming.

"It's been known for some time that satellites and surface thermometers give different temperature trends," said one of the reports' co-authors Prof. S. Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). "We now have independent confirmation that the satellite results are correct and that the climate is not warming." Prof. Singer, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is also a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

Proponents of global warming theory have long pointed to thermometer measurements at the Earth's surface as proof that the Earth is warming. Other scientists have pointed to balloon and satellite readings of temperatures in the Earth's lower atmosphere that show no significant warming. The scientists from the universities of Rochester and Virginia employed a new, independent way of determining the temperature, using historic meteorological climate data to construct temperature values for each grid cell of the Earth at an equivalent height of two meters. This analysis agreed with the satellite and balloon measurements, establishing that the disparity is close to the surface and mainly in the tropics.

In another report, the Rochester/Virginia scientists found that the computer climate models used to assert that the introduction of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm, and that the effect increases with altitude becoming twice as strong at about three miles up, are in stark contrast to the actual data of the past quarter-century. Comparing the results from the three commonly cited climate models with four independent observational data sets, the scientists found that the models all showed temperatures increasing with altitude, while the actual observations showed the opposite occurred.
My comment was that it is not absolute fact that the planet as a whole is getting warmer, and these sources seem to at least confirm that doubt.

Is it your contention that the sources above are not conducting "reasonable examination"?

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:51 am
by Canuckster1127
August wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote:
August wrote:Bart, as I have said before, there is some dispute as to whether the planet on a global level is getting warmer or not. What is not much disputed is that some regions are getting warmer.

The big point of contention is whether this regional warming is in a large part due to human activity or not, and as your post points out, that issue remains unresolved in the face of the hundreds of variables that determine climatic changes.
I would disagree.

There is no question that global warming is taking place. The question is the degree, if any, to which human activity is contributing to it. There are regional variations, but the overall increase in terms of global average is hard fact and not deniable by any reasonable examination.
I quote from the NASA site above:
GHCC scientists have compiled two decades of data showing how atmospheric temperature has behaved over the entire globe. All matter emits microwave radiation that varies with its temperature, among other factors. Microwave sensors on weather satellites can take more than 60,000 temperature measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere, from the surface to about 10 km (6 mi) altitude. The story that these measurements tell is more complex than simply saying the Earth is warming or cooling. Temperatures in the lower troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere where we live) have shown a series of ups and downs since 1979, mostly in a ±0.4oC band, with negligible trends over that period. This contrasts with surface thermometers that show warming during the same period of time. The 1997-98 El Nino caused strong lower tropospheric warming in late 1997, and record warmth in February 1998. Satellite measurements of the lower stratosphere reveal two marked warm periods (as much as 1.5oC warmer), caused by sulfuric acid aerosols deposited in this layer by the eruptions of two large volcanoes. These two warm periods are superimposed upon a strong cooling trend over the 19-year period that has been attributed to ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere. In 1997, record low stratospheric temperatures were recorded. This is an ongoing research effort that will have greater impact as more data are collected and analyzed.
Other studies agree:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Contrary to popular myth the Earth is not warming significantly, according to new research published last month in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists with the universities of Rochester and Virginia.

The reports note two important findings that run counter to the view that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming.

"It's been known for some time that satellites and surface thermometers give different temperature trends," said one of the reports' co-authors Prof. S. Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). "We now have independent confirmation that the satellite results are correct and that the climate is not warming." Prof. Singer, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is also a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

Proponents of global warming theory have long pointed to thermometer measurements at the Earth's surface as proof that the Earth is warming. Other scientists have pointed to balloon and satellite readings of temperatures in the Earth's lower atmosphere that show no significant warming. The scientists from the universities of Rochester and Virginia employed a new, independent way of determining the temperature, using historic meteorological climate data to construct temperature values for each grid cell of the Earth at an equivalent height of two meters. This analysis agreed with the satellite and balloon measurements, establishing that the disparity is close to the surface and mainly in the tropics.

In another report, the Rochester/Virginia scientists found that the computer climate models used to assert that the introduction of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm, and that the effect increases with altitude becoming twice as strong at about three miles up, are in stark contrast to the actual data of the past quarter-century. Comparing the results from the three commonly cited climate models with four independent observational data sets, the scientists found that the models all showed temperatures increasing with altitude, while the actual observations showed the opposite occurred.
My comment was that it is not absolute fact that the planet as a whole is getting warmer, and these sources seem to at least confirm that doubt.

Is it your contention that the sources above are not conducting "reasonable examination"?
No. It is my contention that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that temperatures are rising. What these articles are demonstrating, in my opinion, is that there are regional variations and that there is a great deal of complexity to how this is happening and exactly what the cause is.

That is to be expected for reasons I and my sources have already touched upon.

It is a common tactic in debate and science to cast doubt upon a contention by seeking to demonstrate that an issue is so complex that the proposed general understanding is "simplistic" and "fails to account for several variables." It's a good thing overall as what it leads to, or should is further research study and an effort to isolate those variables and better understand the system.

When it is simply used as a basis to discard what by and large has been accepted by a preponderance of professionals in both camps, ie. that global temperatures have been rising, then, in my humble opinion it ceases to be constructive and serve more in the realm of obfuscation or deliberate confusion of the issue in order to avoid addressing the primary issue.

Granted, there is a whole lot of unknowns and this issue has been obfuscated greatly from many directions.

I do not profess that I have a definitive handle on all elements of this debate and can not prove to anyone's satisfaction, let alone my own, that Global Warming is being caused significantly by human activity.

What I believe is that enough evidence exists as to raising temperatures and some causitive relationship to elements that are contributed by human activity as to prompt further investigation, understanding and at least initially, examination of alternative sources and methods of using energy. Other more direct relationships are already present and proven in terms of air pollution, carcinogens, pathogens etc. to have resulted in significant controls in this area.

As I've stated earlier, I also tend to believe that other factors, primarily economic supply and demand, are moving us in that direction anyway.

NASA is doing a lot of work and investing a lot of money into satellites, high speed computer modelling etc which they should be and no doubt, as more information accumulates, a clearer picture will emerge.

My hope is that both sides of the argument will be open to examining this information and integrating and where necessary adjusting their espoused biases. Human history unfortunately dictates against that happening.

In any event, I'm comfortable admitting there are unanswered questions and more information needed as we move forward. I'm not comfortable pointing to that as an argument for no action whatsoever. That is not the position of a steward.

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:42 pm
by Gman
I'm only going to reply to some of the other messages here then drop this issue...
In any event, I'm comfortable admitting there are unanswered questions and more information needed as we move forward. I'm not comfortable pointing to that as an argument for no action whatsoever. That is not the position of a steward.
Bart I agree 100% with what you are saying here... Some people would also rather not have any speed limits on the highways or drive without motorcycle helmet's either... Ben Roethlisberger found out the hard way on that one... A no action position is not a good or healthy one.
Gman, if you are going to attempt to debate this, at least be honest about it. You just lifted a series of links from another website and posted it here, without even reading what your own links say. How do I know this? Because around one-third of the links you provide are dead links, to pages or servers that do not exist any more.
That is correct... One link led to another and I simply copied and pasted them into the discussion without checking them first. Congrats you figured it out... If you want an updated list just let me know, but you can probably google it just as well as me too.

Here is a good one if you want to chew on this this for awhile. It is the signatures of the eleven scientists of the Joint Science Academies throughout the world who understand what global warming is all about. One of them is from the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.. Maybe you can battle them.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

All the best,

G -