Let's Be Sensible Please

[Zeatrix 0]

For the heck of it I googled Mr Vincent Gray. This is the first thing I found:Greenpeace ExxonSecrets - Vincent GrayThe site is set up to list officials and scientist payed by ExxonMobil to deny global warming

[SCYUKON 0]

For the heck of it I googled Mr Vincent Gray. This is the first thing I found:Greenpeace ExxonSecrets - Vincent GrayThe site is set up to list officials and scientist payed by ExxonMobil to deny global warming

Thanks for the link, unfortunately the only link that worked for me was this one on Al Gore selling out:http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/arti...cfm?artId=22355

[Zeatrix 0]

Interesting read, really. But personally it's a little too slanted for my taste . It's extremely obvious that the article is only out to do one thing, throw mud on Mr Oscar/Nobel prize. At any cost.I don't even see one thread of evidence in the article. But I digress, what I really feel when I read the article was: so what?Fact: Al Gore has done more than any single other person in the world to put focus on climate change. Good for him if he makes a gazillion.What I don't understand is why they still attack him, he's played out his role as far as I'm concerned. Now let's enter the scientists. *-------------------------------*New subject.Today Dagens Nyheter, Swedens largest independent newspaper, held a chat online with the professor of meteorology at Stockholm University. They're starting a big campaign that's aimed at putting focus on global warming and what we can do to stop it. (yeah that's actually right, no one is debating whether it's happening or not ) Thinking of you, I actually sent in a question asking him about uncalibrated climate models. Unfortunately my question wasn't picked, I was seriously bummed out.He had an interesting answer to a question that went something like: "Why can we be sure?"Freely translated his answer was something along the line of: Temperatures are rising and there can be many explanations for this, natural and man made. But, even if you look at the extreme ends of calculations for what natural causes could accomplish when it comes to increasing temperatures it can't come close to explaining the whole increase. The only things that can explain it is the atmospheric increase of CO2.Nothing new for us, but it is important to keep this in mind.

[SCYUKON 0]

Interesting read, really. But personally it's a little too slanted for my taste . It's extremely obvious that the article is only out to do one thing, throw mud on Mr Oscar/Nobel prize. At any cost.I don't even see one thread of evidence in the article. But I digress, what I really feel when I read the article was: so what?Fact: Al Gore has done more than any single other person in the world to put focus on climate change. Good for him if he makes a gazillion.You are kidding right? I know you are kidding...........What I don't understand is why they still attack him, he's played out his role as far as I'm concerned. Now let's enter the scientists. *-------------------------------*New subject.Today Dagens Nyheter, Swedens largest independent newspaper, held a chat online with the professor of meteorology at Stockholm University. They're starting a big campaign that's aimed at putting focus on global warming and what we can do to stop it. (yeah that's actually right, no one is debating whether it's happening or not ) Thinking of you, I actually sent in a question asking him about uncalibrated climate models. Unfortunately my question wasn't picked, I was seriously bummed out.He had an interesting answer to a question that went something like: "Why can we be sure?"Freely translated his answer was something along the line of: Temperatures are rising and there can be many explanations for this, natural and man made. Sounds like a resonable fellowBut, even if you look at the extreme ends of calculations for what natural causes could accomplish when it comes to increasing temperatures it can't come close to explaining the whole increase. The only things that can explain it is the atmospheric increase of CO2. Would be curious to see his calculations to arrive at that conclusion, hopefully something other than just opinion...Ok lets assume he is right (without the benefit of a predictive model - does he go any further then to tell what man's contribution is to all of this??? Probably not, as would need another model to model the amount of naturally occurring CO2.One last thing, and this was the point put forward by the head of NASA (don't think he is in anyone's pocket, do you?): How arrogant of us to choose what we think is the correct climate for the world at this point in time. In other words, even if we could control it (which I seriously doubt we could), whose to say we have the right to do so?Nothing new for us, but it is important to keep this in mind. I will

[Zeatrix 0]

Ok lets assume he is right (without the benefit of a predictive model - does he go any further then to tell what man's contribution is to all of this??? Probably not, as would need another model to model the amount of naturally occurring CO2.One last thing, and this was the point put forward by the head of NASA (don't think he is in anyone's pocket, do you?): How arrogant of us to choose what we think is the correct climate for the world at this point in time.In other words, even if we could control it (which I seriously doubt we could), whose to say we have the right to do so?

To start off, keep in mind that this was just a meteorology professor at Stockholm university, not a climatology professor. I don't think he's done tons of research himself on the subject, but is mostly passing along what he feels is the correct scientific knowledge. Few scientist, and I doubt any, has done extensive research in all areas concerning climate change.Your first question: Does he go any further... Yes and no, remember this was a live chat and the guy probably had to pull answers out of his head. No detailed graphs and calculations. Basically what he said was "it's very hard to explain the steep rise in temperature without considering the added CO2" no more no less.About the NASA guy and his views. I'm 100% sure he's in the pocket of NASA :PNow this is not a scientific definition of "correct climate" but my views. I agree with him that man should not tamper with the climate so to preserve a certain "wanted state". But, if the high amounts of CO2 that we have released (which no one is denying) does have a significant impact (which most climate scientists tend to agree with) on the climate then we actually have done the very thing that Michael Griffin so strongly feels we shouldn't! We HAVE altered the climate and if the IPCC is correct this has caused numerous species to become extinct. Now that, at least in my view, is a serious change of the ecosystem. So, what climate change is really about if you look at it that way, is to try to stop us from changing the climate MORE. Remember, if the excess amount of CO2 is not the cause, then cutting down on emissions will NOT change the climate. But if it is, then cutting emissions will stop the climate from changing more because of humanity. So the way I see it, we are doing the very thing Mr Griffin want us to do if we cut down on CO2 emissions.Also, I sent in a mail to the climate panel that the professor I was talking about is a part of, specifically asking about uncalibrated models. Let's hope they send me a worthwhile response.

[SCYUKON 0]

Also, I sent in a mail to the climate panel that the professor I was talking about is a part of, specifically asking about uncalibrated models. Let's hope they send me a worthwhile response.

Excellent - thanks for pursuing that angle. I hope they give you an objective worthwhile response as well.

[SCYUKON 0]

Geez, just when for entirely selfish reasons (it's been -20 to -30 C, or damn close every morning this week (that's pretty close to 0 for you Fahrenheit folks) I was sorta hoping that global warming was going to make things better, along comes this:http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/article.en...ticleID=2830954Geez, I hope the climatologists screw that one up as well. ;)D

[Balloon guy 158]

Sweden to Study Belching CowsFrom Associated PressJanuary 21, 2008 12:21 PM EST STOCKHOLM, Sweden - A Swedish university has received 3.8 million kronor ($590,000) in research funds to measure the greenhouse gases released when cows belch.

Thought of you Z

[SCYUKON 0]

Hee Hee - I was thinking about this thread as well when I read the headline the other day about "Severe Winterstorms Grip US". Bet a few folks were wondering where the Global Warming was that day!

[SCYUKON 0]

Thought of you Z

mmmn. Eat more Steak and save the earth! Win. Win.

[SCYUKON 0]

Think of me this week Balloon Guy - -42 with the windchill most of the week. Oh yeah - Al was right, Global Warming is all over us like a Fat Kid on a Smarty.............I think it is a work from home day tomorrow. Thank God for VPN.......

[Balloon guy 158]

Think of me this week Balloon Guy - -42 with the windchill most of the week. Oh yeah - Al was right, Global Warming is all over us like a Fat Kid on a Smarty.............I think it is a work from home day tomorrow. Thank God for VPN.......

OuchI needed a light jacket yesterday playing golf, but not until the sun hid behind the mountain.Maybe Global Warming is a localized event?

[SCYUKON 0]

OuchI needed a light jacket yesterday playing golf, but not until the sun hid behind the mountain.Maybe Global Warming is a localized event?

Must be, cuz I sure ain't benefitting from it! It's even costing me more to gas up! The reason? I felt so bad for the poor schmo pumping gas at one of the last non-self-serve outlets in the city that I gave him an extra 7 bucks to buy some hot chocolate after he finished pumping 113 bucks into my gas guzzling SUV yesterday (no damn way I was going to stand outside and do the deed!).

[SCYUKON 0]

Hey Zeatrix - check this out:http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=332289Fits in with my learnings that their models are not calibrated yet.

[akoff 0]

Are you suggesting that science could be wrong?? C’mon that couldn’t happen.

[scgolfer 0]

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htmHmmmmmm

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Are you suggesting that science could be wrong?? C’mon that couldn’t happen.

Yeah, I can prove that many things in Science are wrong. Oh, wait. If I prove that they are wrong, then science accepts them as wrong, and therefore I can no longer prove science wrong because it would then believe what it originally thought to be wrong to be write. Is science self correcting? Boy, that would be unfair and render any attempt to disprove science as a fruitless and pointless effort. I think my head just assploded.

[Zeatrix 0]

Ah, this old thread! I just remembered it and thought I'd check it out.Cool to some some new faces, not only me and SCYUKON! :PAnyways, yeah I read that January has been the second coldest January in 15 years. The only problem for me is that Sweden has had the WARMEST winter in a LONG time. We usually get around -10 to -20 celsius around jan-feb but we've been howering around 0 for the whole period, sometimes it's been as warm as 10 degrees! i think we've had about 4-5 days of snow this whole winter and never more than two days in a row, it always melted over night. So yeah, our winter has been crap and I was really surprised when I found out the rest of the world had had such a cold winter. So if you were wondering were all the heat was, I stole it! :DI guess this only goes to show us one thing (since I had been going around saying things like: great, this is the kind of winters we're going to have from now on): Short periods of extreme weather is not even close to a trend. January being cold were you live is as much a disproof of GW as my warm January is a proof of it.

[Zeatrix 0]

Here is an article I stumbled upon today. It co-written by a new favorite of mine, Steven Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics. http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticle...&fSetId=662It adds some interesting twists to the debate.

[Loismustdie 0]

Ah, this old thread! I just remembered it and thought I'd check it out.Cool to some some new faces, not only me and SCYUKON! :PAnyways, yeah I read that January has been the second coldest January in 15 years. The only problem for me is that Sweden has had the WARMEST winter in a LONG time. We usually get around -10 to -20 celsius around jan-feb but we've been howering around 0 for the whole period, sometimes it's been as warm as 10 degrees! i think we've had about 4-5 days of snow this whole winter and never more than two days in a row, it always melted over night. So yeah, our winter has been crap and I was really surprised when I found out the rest of the world had had such a cold winter. So if you were wondering were all the heat was, I stole it! :DI guess this only goes to show us one thing (since I had been going around saying things like: great, this is the kind of winters we're going to have from now on): Short periods of extreme weather is not even close to a trend. January being cold were you live is as much a disproof of GW as my warm January is.

Lol at pretending to be able to draw any conclusions from a months worth of data.

[Zeatrix 0]

I'm not sure if you're laughing at me or with me. To clarify: what you wrote was what I was trying to say!

[SCYUKON 0]

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htmHmmmmmm

Oh dear - I better back both my SUVs out of the garage and run them all night every night to do my part to stop Global Cooling! ;)At any rate, when you are using an uncalibrated model, as the IPCC was, it is little surprise that you can get an outcome like this.The part that has pissed me off is how much money has been spent, or is planned to be spent (and seems to be gathering steam now that W has bought into it), on reducing CO2 emissions, on such crappy models. I really think that the folks that have championed this really out to get fined big $$$, and start with Mr. Gore himself, who is now nicely lined up trying to cash in even further on the artificial crisis he has helped stir up.Z - sorry about your warm winters - I would not mind one myself!D

[Kaveros 0]

Yeah, I can prove that many things in Science are wrong. Oh, wait. If I prove that they are wrong, then science accepts them as wrong, and therefore I can no longer prove science wrong because it would then believe what it originally thought to be wrong to be write. Is science self correcting? Boy, that would be unfair and render any attempt to disprove science as a fruitless and pointless effort. I think my head just assploded.

winner

[Nimue1995 1]

To really know who's right we will have to do like we do with all science and view it through the lens of history. We probably won't know for another 20-30 years who has it correct.

[coesillian 0]

To really know who's right we will have to do like we do with all science and view it through the lens of history. We probably won't know for another 20-30 years who has it correct.

agreed. but instead of minimizing possible probable negative impacts due to our overconsumption/wastefulness/pollution, lets continue to live our lives careless of the environment until we are 100% certain that our actions affect the environment. 90% certainty isn't good enough to get me to start 2nd guessing my lifestyle./sw