The Heat

janis · Post by **janis** » 15 Sep 2006 19:28

I don't know how much this has been impacting on people in America, but climate change has started to have a big impact on Austraila, there is a servere shortage of water in many parts of the country to the point where desalinasition and water recycling plants have been set up. Also the irrigation system has been affected too, with less water being allocated for farmers.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 16 Sep 2006 03:48

I wouldn't be surprised if that had nothing to do with global warming, to be honest. The problem is that we farm the country with european methods, which just doesn't work. Australia is a dry country and we've been officially in drought for 7-9 years now. Water restrictions are now to the point where it's illegal to water your garden with town water, but I think it's most likely this is just the dry country we live in. None of the natural flora/fauna seems to be effected.

Nathan · Post by **Nathan** » 16 Sep 2006 10:26

Not syaing one thing or another about climate change- but I think its ironic how so far this year has had only mild hurricanes after all the hype about having another year like the last.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 16 Sep 2006 10:36

"Nathan, if you weren't brutally ignorant and you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about and how severe the situation is you would shut the fuck up."

Mosher stop being such a f-ing true believer.
Man, Gore must be a masterul propagandist to turn you into a total robot.

You eat his shit up like it was chocolate.

You act like a real convert, you know, the stereotypical bible thumper that modified folks deep-down, really hate.

And all because of a f-ing movie, you are sold, lock-stock-and-barrel.

Nobody has denied that Al Gore is an out of control, greenhouse gas producer/ fossil fuels consumer.

C-fan could not prove that false, and had to resort to falsely implying that I advocate dis-trusting ALL environmentalists. A weak attempt, at best.

I am willing to be open minded though, I have been willing to accept for some time now, that the earth may be heating up (the cause and a soultuion, if possible, should be debated , not accepted as holy gospel) ...... and I will spend the time to watch Gore's crappy movie, if I dont have to pay for it.

If it's so god-damn important for the salvation of the world, then It should be on the web, or be rented for free.

-n

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 16 Sep 2006 11:19

When I was a kid, "global warming" was predicted by computer programs.

There were no observable effects, only computer predictions.

The models have continued to improve.

We now have real observation of climate changes.

Global warming is not the concern today, catastrophic climate change is.

No longer confined to predictions, we now are observing phenomenon predicted to occur when I was a kid.

What the computers are predicting now is worse than what was predicted in
the 80s. The changes are predicted to occur in orders of magnitude faster,
and with consequences more devasting.

Someone joked about a nuclear winter. Things have progressed so slowly,
and governments like the United States have done so little, a planned nuclear winter is in development.

Plan B. is to create global cooling by simulating a nuclear winter, or a
large scale volcanic eruption by placing large quantities of sulfur in the
upper stratosphere. This will buy the planet only a few years, and is not
a solution, but just a dirty duct tape patch.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 16 Sep 2006 13:11

Tom Mosher in the Cigarette Thread: "Switch Kicker, you're pulling a dan feary. aka getting all pissed off and hyper defensive and in the process revealing how brutally uninformed and dellusional you are."

Tom Mosher in This Thread: "Nathan, if you weren't brutally ignorant and you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about and how severe the situation is you would shut the fuck up."

Pissed off, check
Hyper defensive, check
Brutally uninformed, check (His opinion comes from a single movie)
Dellusional, check

Don't body yourself, son.

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 16 Sep 2006 13:33

You guys keep assuming that all my information is coming from one movie.

Ive read LOTS about the topic from people arguing strongly for both sides of the issue. All I was saying was that the movie presented ALL the ideas (for and against) very honestly and thoroughly.

I don't give a shit if Al Gore drives an SUV (though I think he actually drives a hybrid, jerks), that isn't the issue at hand.

The issue is that you are all showing that you have read one or two articles that outline one view of the situation. Don't form your conclusions after only considering one point of view.

I appologize for being rude and aggressive in those posts, but these are real issues that threaten everyone and you guys are demonstrating that, just like most of the rest of the world, you only KINDA understand the sitch. Take the time to educate yourself before getting all hoity toity.

Lets drop the Al Gore part as an issue, you all can never get past the fact that he's a politician. Is it not possible that he actually gives a crap about something genuine?

Ugh, this is why I never post in the Discussion forum, because the discussions never go anywhere and the ignorant will choose to remain that way.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 16 Sep 2006 18:20

I wanna live on a happy planet next time!!!

janis · Post by **janis** » 16 Sep 2006 18:21

no wonder there is global warming with all this flaming

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 16 Sep 2006 20:17

I feel sucky for getting so heated!

(also

for the pun)

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Sep 2006 10:51

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686

There has long been more unanimity in the scientific community about the reality of global warming. A survey of 928 scientific papers found not a single one that dissented [from the hypothesis that climate change is a function of human activity].

Could someone who believes otherwise PLEASE POST YOUR SOURCES, because they are not found in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 17 Sep 2006 11:42

BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM

Cam, your smartttt

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Sep 2006 17:32

http://fizzied.phasing.org/1686.pdf

Link to the full text PDF of the essay published in Science.

I forget if Science gives away full text content, or if it is something I have because my employer pays for it. Enjoy.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Sep 2006 18:09

Interesting essay, very brief (which I like).

Also very old, as science goes.

Available ,recent material on this topic is enormous.

I'll throw out the red meat I find as I go, to keep the posts short.

NAOMI ORESKES , author of the essay "Beyond the Ivory tower", appears to be an affiliated associate professor for a "Critical Gender Studies Program"

When I read that, I instantly thought, " OK , probably a lesbian program.... a program of study completely composed of villifying the evil, white ,racist ,rapist, and his entire history of evil and horror"

here's a link to that program:

http://cgs.ucsd.edu/index.html

That page has a paragraph on it that re-enforces my first thought.

Ill dive in to see if I was mistaken.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Sep 2006 18:28

hmmmm, I didn't find much more there.

I could not load the graphics converter, so was unable to read their newsletters.

If somebody can open those, chime in if they were the hate whitey/ hate all men kind of documents, that I expected.

I found an abstract from a related paper by Naomi. I don't know if the abstract was written before or after the "Beyond....." essay.

Naomi Oreskes University of California, San Diego
Computer Models and the Rise of Prediction in the Earth Sciences

http://depts.washington.edu/hssexec/ann ... ctsp6.html

Here's the part that stuck out:

(...). Indeed, earth scientists now routinely attempt to predict the future. But these attempts generally meet with failure, or at best only very partial success. Why are earth scientists making predictions, if they are not generally successful? Why have they embraced temporal prediction as a goal, when previously they rejected it? This paper will examine the historical and social context of the rise of prediction .......blah blah(...)

Well, enough of slamming my new friend Naomi.

Except ,I will go look and see if her P.H.D thesis or doctorate was in something like Gender Studies.

We probably all guess that Gender Studies is a "bogus" scientific field, anyway.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Sep 2006 18:31

I bother to investigate Naomi, because we can see that she has a biased interest in portraying global warming, as truth, and human caused.

This is because it implys that whitey men can be made to suffer, or pay for it.

The capitalist system, can also be blamed and punished.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Sep 2006 18:48

You notice in the References and Notes section, at the lower left of the essay by Naomi Oreskes, #9 says : 1993 was the first year for which the databases consistently published abstracts. it went on to say that some abstracts were deleted from the analysis beacuse the authors had put "climate change" in the keywords, but not in their paper.

So was it the whole paper, or the just the abstracts being searched for true "climate change" content? Was Naomi, a Gender Scientist, responsible for deciding which "real" scientific papers would be deleted?

note: Pardon my mis-identification of the title of the essay as "Beyond the Ivory Tower", it was "Consensus something...."

Ill bet if you do enough database searches , using different keywords, and date parameters, you could arrive at a 100% consensus in a lot of things.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Sep 2006 19:01

Here's a good one, at the end of the study, under Corrections, Errata it is written that the actual keywords used in the search, were "global climate change" , and not "climate change".

I wonder if abstracts or papers that disagreed with the so -called "consensus", would even use the word "Global" in front of the words "climate change".

Using the word "global" could perhaps give away the fact the paper will support the G.W. thoery.

Skeptical scientists might just use the general phrase "climate change", and their papers not even be used in the analysis.

Notice that it took a year for the paper to say, at the bottom , in small print,"oh by the way, the basis of the reported consensus was slanted from the start."

I read some other writer gushing over Al Gore and his powerful ,"Inconvenient Truth ".

He quoted Naomi's essay as being absolute proof of this scientific "consensless" about global warming.

That was kind of fun, I wonder if Gore's movie uses Naomi's flimsy "scientific" rag in his movie as proof of consensus?

-n

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 18 Sep 2006 19:08

Bander87 wrote:Psh, all we need is another Mount St. Helens to block the sun for a while (which actually lowered the earth's temperature I heard?).

Good ol' Tambora

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 18 Sep 2006 19:32

yes, 1993 was when they started using the term global climate change, and the papers were picked by those words in the abstract.

The analysis was on the complete texts of the papers.

Yes, most likely a lesbian.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed
is one of the standard search interfaces for scientific literature.

If you find anything you want to read, I'll download the papers and post the pdfs where people can get them.