California Greenie Issues Ultimatum to Oklahoma

[cannon_fodder]

Chicken Little, there is no way you read my post and came back with that.

I never argued that global warming does not exist.  In fact, I chose the fabled middle ground you speak of and discussed the problem of correlation between natural rise and man's contribution.  I even discussed what makes a theory into a law and nearly the entire scientific method.

For that matter, I even said that I suspect man is accelerating the rate of global warming and then pondered what the implications of that are.

You read the introduction to my post and then (incorrectly) guessed my view on the issue and responded.  It runs out you were wrong and that I, in fact, agree with you.  I'm sorry my post was long, but this is a complex topic and I felt I needed to lay a baseline of facts to explain my belief in global warming and my opposition to those who wish to quell all dissent on the issue.

Please read what I have to say before responding.  It is akin to letting a speaker finish his point without interrupting.

[Wilbur]

Let me get this straight -

The earth is approx 6,000,000,000 years old.
The average temperature for the last 100 years has risen 0.6 degrees.
We therefore declare the earth is headed for disaster.
The ice age covered how much of North America?
Anyone complaining about the 'global warming' that melted all that ice and allowed us to live here?
I'm curious as to where data is obtained from 12,000 years ago.
Anybody going to claim Earth has never been hotter?  Lets go back 6,000,000,000 years and find out.
Is global warming happening?  You betcha!
Is man responsible?  The REAL jury is still out.
Al Gore preaches global warming, then refuses to sign a pledge to only use the same amount of energy as the average family.  Then claims he can buy carbon credits!  Is he serious!
Lets all tell Jesus we are buying credits for sin.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

There's no "data" from the opposing viewpoint.  Global warming is happening because of us (well, California mostly), it's only the consequences of it that are in dispute.  It's ignorant for this lady to link recent droughts and wildfires to global warming.  

Look up "medieval Warm period" and you'll find plenty of opposition. Not to mention opposition to  the concept of "average planet temperature" and the glacier melting statements. The main reasons being the effects scientists are pointing out are being measured based on very small samples. Saying the ice caps are melting while only being able to sample 5% leaves room for criticism. There are no temperature probes placed evenly around the planet for the last 200 years and even the data supporting global warming shows it cooler now than 1998.

Supporting a viewpoint while denying the existence of the other viewpoint is extremely short-sighted. You can't support something when you don't know what you support.
[/quote]

They can measure more than 5% of Ice Cap melting and other things. Whether you argue the specifics of "average planet temperature" they can measure the temperature all over the planet.  They can also measure emissions.

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070316164359.htm  

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070320103826.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070321153646.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070327122328.htm  

As for the middle ages, great warming or little ice age.  It depends WHERE you look and WHEN.  For example even now Great Britan and parts of Europe are experiencing a warming trend.  But most of us are aware that one reason GB is warm is because of the current from the Gulf of Mexico.  The interesting thing to note is that if things get a bit warmer, ice melts more, this cold water will push the gulf stream away from GB and even though over all it will get warmer GB could experience mini Ice Age conditions once again, for a time. During that mini ice age, parts of the Americas were indeed warmer than usual.  (large volcanic eruptions played their part during many of these extreme temperature variations, the warming was during a solar maximum, we are currently not in one) We know that temperatures have fluctuated a lot over time, but its the constancy, causes, and amounts that seem to be present at the moment that are worrisome.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060926072215.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031020055353.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060517082359.htm


There are some things that many people at first glance will say is proof that the earth isnt warming, for instance greater amounts of snow in some areas during winter. If one average day its 25 F and another its a warmer 28 F its still cold enough to snow, but the warmer over all temps will put more moisture into the air, thus more snow even though its warmer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031106052121.htm

I am willing to bet that in the next 10 years or so as more current data is collected and more, older historic types of data found, studied and better analyzed,,, we will put the majority of this controversy solidly to rest.

[Breadburner]

If you re-arrange the letters in George Bush's name you get....He Bugs Gore.....


Global Warming is mumbo jumbo....

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Chicken Little, there is no way you read my post and came back with that.

I never argued that global warming does not exist.  In fact, I chose the fabled middle ground you speak of and discussed the problem of correlation between natural rise and man's contribution.  I even discussed what makes a theory into a law and nearly the entire scientific method.

For that matter, I even said that I suspect man is accelerating the rate of global warming and then pondered what the implications of that are.

You read the introduction to my post and then (incorrectly) guessed my view on the issue and responded.  It runs out you were wrong and that I, in fact, agree with you.  I'm sorry my post was long, but this is a complex topic and I felt I needed to lay a baseline of facts to explain my belief in global warming and my opposition to those who wish to quell all dissent on the issue.

Please read what I have to say before responding.  It is akin to letting a speaker finish his point without interrupting.

CF, I didn't "guess" at your position.  I read your post.  It's well-written, but not compelling.

What is compelling is that thousands of scientists have endorsed the IPCC Report, which states that climate warming is "unequivocal" and that "(m)ost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

What's also compelling is that ExxonMobile, the world's most profitable corporation, funds contrarian organizations, and even publishes books in support of an organized disinformation campaign.  So, forgive me if I'm skeptical.  I'm old enough to remember when another group of "scientists" told me that there was no connection between tobacco and lung cancer.

Saying that science is, by definition, an open-ended investigation is one thing.  But asking me to give credence to a few paid shills simply because they support a contrary position is simply bad advice.

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little


I think Inhofe is a fool, too, that's not the point.  The point here is that she never cared about Oklahoma in the first place.  Now she's made us a convenient scapegoat.  Hey, California-lady, who pollutes more, your state or ours?  How many miles a year do you put on your car getting from sprawling suburb to sprawling suburb?  What's up with that Colorado River that you sucked dry in order to grow spinich in a semi-desert?

Does she know how we changed the way we manage our environment (decades ago) so that we'll never see another dust bowl?  Does she know that we are "recycling" old oil fields right this second, making our country a little more energy independent?  Does she know about our wind farms?

Sure, Inhofe's a joke, but he's not the problem.  California's the PROBLEM.

Do environuts who run around squawking save the environment while at the same time being a major contributer to the problem irritate you too?

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

[CF, I didn't "guess" at your position.  I read your post.  It's well-written, but not compelling.

What is compelling is that thousands of scientists have endorsed the IPCC Report, which states that climate warming is "unequivocal" and that "(m)ost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

What's also compelling is that ExxonMobile, the world's most profitable corporation, funds contrarian organizations, and even publishes books in support of an organized disinformation campaign.  So, forgive me if I'm skeptical.  I'm old enough to remember when another group of "scientists" told me that there was no connection between tobacco and lung cancer.

Saying that science is, by definition, an open-ended investigation is one thing.  But asking me to give credence to a few paid shills simply because they support a contrary position is simply bad advice.

SPeaking of funding

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070123a.html
At a time when the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is censuring free market organizations for accepting donations from ExxonMobil, critics have turned the spotlight back onto the UCS, its left-wing positions, and its own funding practices.

In a recent report, the UCS charged that organizations are using oil industry money to create public uncertainty about what it calls "consensus" about climate change and the role of human activity in affecting temperatures see related story. Organizations named in the report have denied the claims.

snip..

But critics say it is an openly political group.

According to James Dellinger, executive director of Greenwatch - a project of the Capital Research Center - the UCS has a long financial association with elements that have a "partisan view of science."

snip..


The UCS receives substantial donations from liberal-leaning foundations, and a number of the donations are earmarked for specific studies, used to promote positions on issues including the environment, disarmament and criticism of missile defense initiatives.

Private foundations cumulatively spend tens of millions of dollars annually on climate change projects, according to information made available through the foundations' websites.

Donations to the UCS in recent years include the following:


   * 2000 - a $25,000 Carnegie Corporation of New York grant for "dissemination of a report on National Missile Defense."
   * 2002 - a $1 million Pew Memorial Trust
     grant "to support efforts to increase the nation's commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy as a cornerstone of a balanced and environmentally sound energy policy."
   * 2003 - a $500,000 Energy Foundation grant over two years "to continue to support a national renewable portfolio standard education and outreach effort."
   * 2004 - a $50,000 Energy foundation grant "to design and implement the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon market in the Northeast."
   * 2004 - a $100,000 Energy foundation grant "to study the impacts of climate change on California using the latest climate modeling."
   * 2004 - a $600,000 Energy foundation grant over two years "to promote renewable energy policy at the federal and state levels, with a focus on the Midwest, the Northeast, and California."


In a study published in 2005, the George C. Marshall Institute(GMI) explored funding for global warming studies and reported that the UCS was among the top five recipients of grants dispersed for climate studies.




http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6631
UCS has received funding from the Beldon Fund, the Compton Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Scherman Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Energy Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, and Pew Charitable Trusts.



http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf

[cannon_fodder]

Chicken Little:

You are then old enough to remember the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970's.  Or the acid rain of the 1980's.  Or the we're running out of clean water thing in the 1990's.  All of which have turned out to be grossly exaggerated as threats to our society.

Of course, I hardly need to point out that GLOBAL COOLING was being sung a couple decades ago as THE THREAT to the world by the same people now mongering about global warming.  
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

and that's why science must be open to dissent.  If the same atmosphere had taken place in 1975 we would have enacted massive legislation to emit massive amounts of C02 to help deal with global cooling only to find out we were wrong.  Thank god rational thought and science prevailed.

Anyway, I agree with you that the correlation is compelling and it is VERY LIKELY that global warming is being accelerated by man.  I also agree that the funding of an organization puts its findings in question.  But not all of the scientists that are being discredited are funded by your hated oil companies nor anyone else with ulterior motives.  Simply put, anyone disagreeing with the notion is labeled a hack, a stooge, or an idiot and cast aside.

You dont have to give anyone credence, but you should listen to the dissent and consider any evidence they present.  Only at that time can you decide they are a hack and ignore their findings.  Otherwise you are operating on your belief and not the evidence.  Again, making global warming a religion and casting all heretics aside.  

Saying, "I have looked over their theories and they dont seem to be as good as the majorities" is a much stronger statement than "they are paid tools for the oil industry I ignore them."

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by jamesrage

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little


I think Inhofe is a fool, too, that's not the point.  The point here is that she never cared about Oklahoma in the first place.  Now she's made us a convenient scapegoat.  Hey, California-lady, who pollutes more, your state or ours?  How many miles a year do you put on your car getting from sprawling suburb to sprawling suburb?  What's up with that Colorado River that you sucked dry in order to grow spinich in a semi-desert?

Does she know how we changed the way we manage our environment (decades ago) so that we'll never see another dust bowl?  Does she know that we are "recycling" old oil fields right this second, making our country a little more energy independent?  Does she know about our wind farms?

Sure, Inhofe's a joke, but he's not the problem.  California's the PROBLEM.

Do environuts who run around squawking save the environment while at the same time being a major contributer to the problem irritate you too?

Yup.  That's why I started this thread.  It's not so much because they want the world to change its ways, but because they are hypocrites.  This California lady is extremely irritating because she seems to think that its okay to hold Oklahoma accountable for problems that are far more the creation of her own state.  I think she does this mainly because she didn't give a d*mn about Oklahoma in the first place.

Further, she thinks we have water shortages (like Cali does), which indicates that she knows nothing about my state.  It may be true in the extreme west, but the majority of the state is water rich.

Finally, she seems to think that recent droughts and wildfires are the result of global warming.  That opinion is not supported by science, but even if it were true, they're the pollutors.  Oklahoma? Not so much.  It's the enviromental version of "blame the victim".

[cannon_fodder]

In that light:

"All wounds, in a democracy, are ultimately self-inflicted"

Lets remind her of that next time an earth quake hits California.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

In that light:

"All wounds, in a democracy, are ultimately self-inflicted"

Lets remind her of that next time an earth quake hits California.

Nice.  And your point is well taken.  Just because there are hacks and paid stooges out there spreading disinformation, does not mean that dissenting theories are bad.  In fact, they are essential in scientific processes.  I've been shrill on that point.  Sorry.  Thanks.

[rwarn17588]

Those who chose "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to bolster their arguments had better think again.

Several of the scientists interviewed in the program have been revealed as cranks, and others said their views were misrepresented.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

Those who accuse the global warming crowd of having a political agenda are pots calling the kettle black.

Cecil Adams, author of The Straight Dope science column, larges echoes Chicken Little's reasoned, pragmatic approach.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060407.html

"So, if nothing can be done to reduce CO2, should we quit worrying, buy SUVs, and party on? On the contrary. Fossil fuels are to the developing world today what the American forest was to this country two centuries ago -- a cheap, easily exploited resource that permits extraordinary economic growth for the short time that it lasts. The U.S., through its huge trade deficits and job exports, is now financing the industrialization of Asia, a result we didn't intend but may as well make the most of -- clearly we want teeming nations like China, India, and Indonesia to become prosperous, stable societies. Making that happen, though, will take decades of steady investment and jigawatts of energy, the price of which will climb steeply once fossil fuels run out. Hastening that none-too-distant day through frivolous use of the supplies we now have would be stupid (although fossil fuel depletion will also end the emissions problem). A more realistic approach is to say, OK, we're going to burn this fuel and cope with whatever dire result, but let's put the stuff to good use while we've got it. That means distributing improved technology to use energy more efficiently and pollute less. Amazingly, just such an approach was agreed to last year when the U.S., Australia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea formed the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which may go down as Dubya's saving grace after having screwed the pooch in Iraq."

[Hometown]

Mr. Little, you know I'm a big fan of yours but I have to tell you that when I returned to Tulsa from California I couldn't believe what I found.  We don't have smog checks here.  You know all these old smokers you see rolling around Tulsa.  You don't even see cars that old in California.  They wouldn't pass a smog check.  

And then there is recycling.  In San Francisco we literally recycled almost all of our garbage.  They even recycle wet garbaqe into compost.  My impression is that most of the people here don't recycle anything.  When I see college educated people throwing bottles in the garbage I think what is wrong with you.

When I got back here and saw everyone lined up in their smokey cars waiting for a teller I thought gosh, you don't even see tellers in California.  It's almost all ATMs.  And people don't sit in their cars waiting for one.  

It's like finding out the people of Oklahoma don't wear shoes.  We have become a third world community.  Oklahoma is a net negative for the nation.  And yes in a Democracy you get what you deserve.  No one else sent Inhofe to Washington.  We did.

Now I'm trying to figure out why.  The closest I've come to an answer is that we were settled late.  We attracted the economic down and outs with the free land grants.  We are a little like the Germans -- slow to civilize.

The road to something better begins by seeing where you really stand.

[Conan71]

If Tulsa sucks so bad, we have so many rednecks with smoky cars, the job market sucks, we elect backwardsass politicians, there are too many conservative trolls like myself, etc.  Why exactly did you move back here, and why are you still here?

[Hawkins]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

If Tulsa sucks so bad, we have so many rednecks with smoky cars, the job market sucks, we elect backwardsass politicians, there are too many conservative trolls like myself, etc.  Why exactly did you move back here, and why are you still here?

LOL, we don't even have automobile inspections now! How about that!

As for Inhofe, I'm sorry, but the guy is a hardcore Republican, and lately this party has become so wrapped up with protecting big business corporate America, that I can't believe him as a nuetral source when he says global warming is a hoax.