New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[SpiritWarrior]

Or what SM said - posted it before me and simpler too.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by machinehead Trees etc. take IN co2 and belch OUT oxygen. It's called Photosynthesis.

Yes...well...it appears I fumbled the ball on that one. I meant to say "cows" but my brain went elsewhere and there is no way for me to backtrack or dig myself out of that hole other than to admit that I goofed. *shrug*

[John D Harris]

A rotting tree or plant giving off it's CO2 is considered harmful ????????? Did I freaking read that right????? So for what 500 million years or so Plants have been living and dieing, Giving off CO2 when they rot and that is harmful????? Well spank my ass and paint it purple..... Holy horse manure for 500 million years harm has been happening and it has waited until some creature happened to invent an internal combusion engine before this harm sprung upon the Earth... Hale's bells paint pink poka dots on there too.... If that ain't the stupidest comment I think I've read in a my life.... Yes I know Humus gives off CO2 it's been doing it ever since plants have been around in fact plants are the foundation for the rest of life on this planet... and the natural process that has been going on for 500,000,000+ years is harmful???? 500,000,000 years is harmful????? Just out of idle couriousity what the Hale do you consider not harmful? If 500 million years of alowing life to grow and expand is harmful.

[machinehead]

Originally Posted by Azred Yes...well...it appears I fumbled the ball on that one. I meant to say "cows" but my brain went elsewhere and there is no way for me to backtrack or dig myself out of that hole other than to admit that I goofed. *shrug*

LOL, I figured you had a brain fart on that one. Couldn't help myself - I had to jump on it.

[Chewbacca]

Of course Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Pollution by definition is stuff put into the enviroment by humans.

Given human track record with pollution it seems highly foolish to give any benefits of doubt when it comes to our emissions.

Study until we know and don't give up until we do seems prudent.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by John D Harris A rotting tree or plant giving off it's CO2 is considered harmful ????????? Did I freaking read that right????? So for what 500 million years or so Plants have been living and dieing, Giving off CO2 when they rot and that is harmful????? Well spank my ass and paint it purple..... Holy horse manure for 500 million years harm has been happening and it has waited until some creature happened to invent an internal combusion engine before this harm sprung upon the Earth... Hale's bells paint pink poka dots on there too.... If that ain't the stupidest comment I think I've read in a my life.... Yes I know Humus gives off CO2 it's been doing it ever since plants have been around in fact plants are the foundation for the rest of life on this planet... and the natural process that has been going on for 500,000,000+ years is harmful???? 500,000,000 years is harmful????? Just out of idle couriousity what the Hale do you consider not harmful? If 500 million years of alowing life to grow and expand is harmful.

lol wtf?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Of course Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Pollution by definition is stuff put into the enviroment by humans.

Didn't we just agree that plants also put some carbon dioxide into the environment? And what about all those other mammals (besides humans) that breathe carbon dioxide out?

If pollution is stuff put into the environment by humans, then carbon dioxide - by definition - cannot be a pollutant, because humans are not the only ones putting it into the environment.

[Cerek]

As for the rest of the debate, I still find a lot of claims from the pro-GCC side to be dubious at best.

SW - You claim "all scientists are in agreement about GCC and have been for years". You've been making that same claim since before the email scandals broke and revealed the lead group of scientists not only failed to adhere to the accepted scientific method of sharing data to see if their results were accurate, they deliberately conspired and refused to share their data because they stated the other scientists "just wanted to find something wrong with it". That doesn't sound like universal agreement to me. Even though the debate my be politically driven, the fact that the debate continues also shows that all scientists are not in universal agreement regarding the causes of GCC because both sides are able to produce scientists and scientific reports supporting their cause.

Even if there is a universal consensus, critics still have to question whether that consensus is driven by any motives other than pure scientific discovery. There is universal consensus among the Big Oil companies that more drilling is necessary to maintain our current lifestyle and support our modern technology (since crude oil is used for many more products than just gasoline), but there are still plenty of critics claiming that universal agreement is not enough to give them carte' blanche.

I will agree that GCC scientists protect and defend their viewpoint with a religious fervor. I also agree scientists do not need the masses to agree with their findings, they just need their grant writers that provide the funding to agree with them....or is that the other way around? Either way, there is no denying that environmentalists have always used "alarmist exaggerations" in the past and continue to do so now. I also remember the cries of alarm in the 70's that we were headed for another Ice Age. The fact that scientists NOW try to dismiss or trivialize that doesn't change the fact their predecessors still screamed the message JUST as loudly as GCC is being screamed today. I also remember the cries of alarm from the late 80's that the Amazon forest was going to be completely burnt and obliterated by the new millenia due to the hundreds of acres being burnt [b]every day[/i] at that time. The best I can tell, satellite imagery still shows a rather large chunk of the Amazon forest on the map 20 years later.

You might dismiss these or make qualifications to state why those environmentalists were actually right, but that doesn't change the fact they grossly exaggerated the effect human actions were having at the time and the effect those actions would have in the future.

BTW, religion doesn't require the masses to be successful. We've also agreed on some universal truths and moved on, despite the continued disagreement (and disbelief) of many among the general population.

I also like the notion that only scientists are allowed to make any statements about the environment and the impact humans may or may not be having on it. Obviously, somebody forgot to tell Al Gore OR the scientific community about this caveat, since Al was given the Nobel Peace Prize for his film, even though he has NO scientific degree at all. What he DOES have is his own agenda for promoting "Green" technology. Yes, it has been a pet cause of his since college, but he has done his best to turn that pet cause into a revenue generating cause as well. Why does Al Gore promote Green Technology so strongly? Maybe because he has invested heavily in the companies providing the technology he promotes? Remember the carbon footprint and carbon offsets from a few years ago? Everyone should measure their carbon footprint and either reduce it or "buy" carbon offsets to excuse their excessive use. Turns out Al's own "carbon footprint" was about 12 times that of an average household in his TN home (while GWB's personal ranch house had already been converted to "green technology - gotta love the irony of that). But it was OK, because Al bought "carbon offsets" from the company in which he was a 51% owner. In other words, he wrote an excuse for himself for not following his own rules. And yet, he will still be defended despite his obvious hypocrisy.

I also agree with Azred and John D. that the Earth has gone in continuous cycles of warming and cooling LONG before Man was dominant enough to have any impact at all on the environment and the current warming period we are having may, in fact, just be part of the natural cycle. If so, science HAS shown that disrupting or altering the natural cycle of events CAN have detrimental results. Sometimes, it is better to let a section of forest burn to remove old growth and promote new growth. Many people are opposed to hunting, but evidence clearly shows it is detrimental to allow deer populations to expand without control.

Humans often feel there should never be any "bad" occurrences, but what may seem "bad" in the short term turns out to be beneficial in the long term. Is the globe going through an overall warming trend? Evidence suggests that it is? Are humans responsible for this trend, either directly or indirectly? Possibly a little, but not nearly to the extent the alarmists would have us believe - and, yes, they ARE being alarmists. Should we dismiss their cries of alarm and ignore their warnings? No, because humans have had negative impacts on the environment in the past and will continue to have some in the future. MOST of these impacts have been more localized in nature (think about L.A. back in the 70's - pollution so thick they coined the new term "smog" to describe it).

So there IS reason to be prudent and look for ways to change or reduce the impact mankind might have on the environment (even if the impact IS localized), but there is equal reason to view the alarmists claims with an extremely critical eye - especially when the group in charge of regulations does none of it's own research and the group in charge of doing the research refuses to share their data with others to see if the results can be reproduced objectively.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek You claim "all scientists are in agreement about GCC and have been for years". You've been making that same claim since before the email scandals broke and revealed the lead group of scientists not only failed to adhere to the accepted scientific method of sharing data to see if their results were accurate, they deliberately conspired and refused to share their data because they stated the other scientists "just wanted to find something wrong with it". That doesn't sound like universal agreement to me. Even though the debate my be politically driven, the fact that the debate continues also shows that all scientists are not in universal agreement regarding the causes of GCC because both sides are able to produce scientists and scientific reports supporting their cause.

Deja vu?

Science is in full agreement on the issue. You're saying differently - which goes against general concesus on the issue. So the burden of proof here falls on you. I am not sure how serious you are about this, but I would encourage you to follow it through - and all the way this time. If I was in doubt, my advice would be to track down you local academies and press them on this. Then maybe track down not-so-local academies and ask them too. Call colleges, institutes, even large libraries and speak with professors of the sciences. Perhaps email the international ones and then take stock of the results. Voice your opinion and ask them if they agree with their collegues. Correspond and document it. Then come back with the names of the esteemed who represent a significant, conflicted and divisive group. Fair enough?

Even if there is a universal consensus, critics still have to question whether that consensus is driven by any motives other than pure scientific discovery. There is universal consensus among the Big Oil companies that more drilling is necessary to maintain our current lifestyle and support our modern technology (since crude oil is used for many more products than just gasoline), but there are still plenty of critics claiming that universal agreement is not enough to give them carte' blanche..

That's quite a comparison. Oil companies who want more liquid-gold or scientists who want....to be scientists.

I will agree that GCC scientists protect and defend their viewpoint with a religious fervor. I also agree scientists do not need the masses to agree with their findings, they just need their grant writers that provide the funding to agree with them....or is that the other way around?

They don't need to worry about a shortage in grants or funding. Again, all the major science academies around the world have universally agreed on the findings and their governments fund them most of the time because of this. No need to look for third-party unless you're kinda up & coming (They have 3rd party sponsors but they're not absolutely essential for the work). Look at the amount of funding the USA has put into this research, for example. Or, when you talk to them, ask 'em. I bet you will find there is no shortage in funds.

You might dismiss these or make qualifications to state why those environmentalists were actually right, but that doesn't change the fact they grossly exaggerated the effect human actions were having at the time and the effect those actions would have in the future.

Covered in other posts (Chewy, I think?). Not gonna make this more tldr.

BTW, religion doesn't require the masses to be successful. We've also agreed on some universal truths and moved on, despite the continued disagreement (and disbelief) of many among the general population.

Well, yes not the "masses" as in everyone. It needs a mass of people in order to spring up into a cult/church. Religions need a congregation of people, a following to establish themselves. Most of them do their utmost to extract money from their followers too. The other difference is religion wants to assimilate everyone else into it, the real masses. It spends an eternity attempting to "spread the good word" on why their system is better than your system. Science doesn't need such an assimilation which is what I have been saying. It's moved onto bigger things. We may need it, but they don't.

I also like the notion that only scientists are allowed to make any statements about the environment and the impact humans may or may not be having on it. Obviously, somebody forgot to tell Al Gore OR the scientific community about this caveat, since Al was given the Nobel Peace Prize for his film, even though he has NO scientific degree at all. What he DOES have is his own agenda for promoting "Green" technology. Yes, it has been a pet cause of his since college, but he has done his best to turn that pet cause into a revenue generating cause as well. Why does Al Gore promote Green Technology so strongly? Maybe because he has invested heavily in the companies providing the technology he promotes? Remember the carbon footprint and carbon offsets from a few years ago? Everyone should measure their carbon footprint and either reduce it or "buy" carbon offsets to excuse their excessive use. Turns out Al's own "carbon footprint" was about 12 times that of an average household in his TN home (while GWB's personal ranch house had already been converted to "green technology - gotta love the irony of that). But it was OK, because Al bought "carbon offsets" from the company in which he was a 51% owner. In other words, he wrote an excuse for himself for not following his own rules. And yet, he will still be defended despite his obvious hypocrisy.

As you know, covered more than once in previous discussions we've had. While it's good to see you recycling, I don't have the motivation for the amnesia thing lol. Maybe someone else does.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Of course Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Pollution by definition is stuff put into the enviroment by humans.

So how much of a fine are you willing to pay to the government for the "pollution" you exhale on a daily basis?