Global Warming?

jdhdiggs

Post the links please...

Demiurge

unc2701 wrote:

Dude, he does no reseach, he has no data. Whenever something is published giving a completely no-**** result (up pollution levels and asthamtic kids start wheezing) he comes back with "correlation is not causation". That's true. Except that there are hundreds of studies showing the biologic pathways that cause the inflamation which leads to the health effects. So causation is established and the epidemiologic studies show that it happens on a large scale at ambient levels. Then he ususally throws in some lies about how the study was funded, debunked by other scientists, or otherwise flawed. A good example would be the harvard 6 cities study- go read what he has to say about that, then we'll talk.

Now. That's just talking about the air pollution/ health effects. I'm not an expert in global warming, but I really know my **** when it comes to health effects. I spend about half my time doing this, and about half doing pharma research and I'm well qualified to say that most of what's on that website is poorly written BS.

You make a living with it, no wonder you want to propgate the fears.

jdhdiggs

faster100 wrote:

explains the agenda here,

Huh? She's with me on this...

Agenda? I'm just not getting your intent here Cliff. Did we hurt your feelings or something?

Demiurge

jdhdiggs wrote:

Huh? She's with me on this...

Say it more slowly.

markmarc

The earth is constantly evolving, changing. however, man is not helping the situation.
It is interesting to note that the two most acclaimed US atmospheric scientists are on opposite sides of the issue. One (I can't remember his name) is convinced man has less than 20 years to clean up his act or else we will go over the tipping point. On the other hand Dr. Grey (famous for his pretty accurate hurricane predictions) says a shift back in temperatures is just a few years away.

One side is that Phoenix's overnight temps are between 10-15 degrees higher than the 1970's. The polar ice cap is shrinking, Alaska's glaciers have retreated several miles at points. International pilots will tell you of mass pollution clouds over India and into the ocean to the east. Mt. Kilamanjaro's snow cap is all but gone, and there is a massive coral reef die-off going on.

On the other side, Volcanoes spew out massive amounts of various pollutants, temps and weather patterns have always fluctuated, rainfall is higher in some areas.

We can all agree that earth has, and is capable of healing itself from natural changes, it's known as nature's balancing act. IMHO, as a decently well-read and rational thinking human, modern man's additional impact is causing issues that the earth's natural ability to heal is struggling to find a new balance point.

It would be wise and prudent for all mankind to be reasonable and judicious in assisting mother nature in limiting our pollutive impact on the planet. There are many things that we can do that is both wise and financially beneficial. I combine trips, turn down the thermostat at night to 60, recycle as much as possible, limit my use of fertilizers. It isn't much but it makes sense.

faster100

jdhdiggs wrote:

That's funny, my wife works in the environmental engineering field and that sight matches most, if not all, of their findings in the field she works in.

hurt my feelings? Nope..

your wife is in the business, so your a hardcore supporter.. hence the agenda to back down all my opinions..

Just like someone just mentioned UNC is in the business and why he has his feelings on the matter.. what's good for the goose right

unc2701

Demiurge wrote:

You make a living with it, no wonder you want to propgate the fears.

I could give a **** about the results. I just get paid to do analysis and there's much more money to be had on the pharma side. I just do this 'cause i'm so **** good at it.

here's a sampling of his hard-on for the Six Cities study:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=six+cities&domains=www.junkscience.com&sitesearch=www.junkscience.com

If you want to go point by point, I'll be happy to oblige, but I hope you're up to speed on non-linear random effect models. I'd rather not get into what I'm working on, but it's pretty no-****. Air pollution makes asthmatic kids sick.

faster100

markmarc wrote:

.

excellent post

although i can't express my feelings like markmarc.. Its the way i feel as well..

well said

jdhdiggs

faster100 wrote:

hurt my feelings? Nope..

your wife is in the business, so your a hardcore supporter.. hence the agenda to back down all my opinions..

Just like someone just mentioned UNC is in the business and why he has his feelings on the matter.. what's good for the goose right

She works in environmental cleanup and that's why I don't think humans have as much impact as the extremists claim... Right... Most rational people would think we'd be in opposite camps.

faster100

Look, it's all good.. Great discussion..

if you can stop the "hurt feelings" and "whinning" comments people make.. we could continue a good talk

jdhdiggs

unc2701 wrote:

I could give a **** about the results. I just get paid to do analysis and there's much more money to be had on the pharma side. I just do this 'cause i'm so **** good at it.

here's a sampling of his hard-on for the Six Cities study:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=six+cities&domains=www.junkscience.com&sitesearch=www.junkscience.com

If you want to go point by point, I'll be happy to oblige, but I hope you're up to speed on non-linear random effect models. I'd rather not get into what I'm working on, but it's pretty no-****. Air pollution makes asthmatic kids sick.

Uh, he agreed with your supposition of Air pollution = sick, asmathic kids. What he did was challenge why the data wasn't released when asked and showed how the relative scale of the effects are lower than other controllable environmental factors. I'll keep reading, but I'm not getting your objection....

edit: Ok, he points to some discussion of incluiding addional factors that knock the conclusions out the window. Why wouldn't that be a concern. If you are putting together policy, shouldn't you have considered all of the possibilities?

I'm up on non-linear econometric models... I'm guessing their based on the same premise.

Further edit: Those articles are collected on the sight but are written by different people. Just a note.

jdhdiggs

faster100 wrote:

Look, it's all good.. Great discussion..

if you can stop the "hurt feelings" and "whinning" comments people make.. we could continue a good talk

Hey, you were the one who said I had an agenda. You know, what's good for the goose...

faster100

you do, you had to mention your wife was in the business.. and for what? to substansiate (sp) your position... Mine are just opinions, i need no backup

Demiurge

Unfortunately, even in this argument data doesn't mean much unless it's complete. Cutting off your figures at various intervals can make that part of the data look completely different than when it's viewed as a whole. That's what has been going on in this debate forever.

The fact remains is that we do not have weather and climate patterns that go back to the start of time. Without that you're simply not grasping the scope of the man made phenomenon that is global warming, nor how long man has even had a chance to effect it -- if at all. We're a blip on the timeline, which shows how arrogant humans can be.

You can make data look scary as hell if you want to, but it's irrational. I think that's the big part of the argument, what's rational to worry about and what isn't.

jdhdiggs

faster100 wrote:

you do, you had to mention your wife was in the business.. and for what? to substansiate (sp) your position... Mine are just opinions, i need no backup

I just had to preserve this... :eek:

faster100

your unreal,

jdhdiggs

Demiurge wrote:

Unfortunately, even in this argument data doesn't mean much unless it's complete. Cutting off your figures at various intervals can make that part of the data look completely different than when it's viewed as a whole. That's what has been going on in this debate forever.

The fact remains is that we do not have weather and climate patterns that go back to the start of time. Without that you're simply not grasping the scope of the man made phenomenon that is global warming, nor how long man has even had a chance to effect it -- if at all. We're a blip on the timeline, which shows how arrogant humans can be.

You can make data look scary as hell if you want to, but it's irrational. I think that's the big part of the argument, what's rational to worry about and what isn't.

Demi, the piece you're also missing is that we DO have records of what was in the air going back millions of years (no temp though). What can be found is that the current "causes" for warming were much worse at past times, yet the Earth still attained it's current state.

unc2701

1) The data was reanalyized by an indepedent commision agreed upon by industry and havard. The took into account all the errors mentioned by Milloy as making the study flawed. Even after doing everything possible to bias the study into finding nothing, they came up essentially the same results. Milloy claims the whole thing was debunked.

2)pope didn't want to give up the data because it's very easy to do a crappy analysis that showing nothing- something that industry intended to do. After a long debate they agreed on the third party mentioned above.

3)Milloy makes it sound like it was just severely sick asthmatics, etc, but that was not the conclusion of the independent analysis.

4)Industry took the EPA to court over the new PM2.5 standards. The Supreme court decided that the EPA should not in any way consider the cost implications of its standards. It's mandate in setting these standards is solely to consider the health of the population of the US.

5)Congress specifically funded a followup study to look into this further. That study found that health effects can be found at even lower levels than the NEW standards.

Milloy leaves most this out (note that a bunch of the stuff on that google search wasn't written by him). Basically, he pulls a Michael Moore and cherry picks the talking pionts that support his argument and leaves out a massive amount of data opposing his view.

You're not going to find the opposition on his site... All I'm asking is that you treat him like you would Michael Moore. He has an agenda, and it's what he's not telling you that matters.

Demiurge

jdhdiggs wrote:

Demi, the piece you're also missing is that we DO have records of what was in the air going back millions of years (no temp though). What can be found is that the current "causes" for warming were much worse at past times, yet the Earth still attained it's current state.

Temp is what I am getting at. Saying it's been getting 1 degree warmer for the last 50 years (For example)is more shocking when viewed over a 100 year time frame as opposed to oh....4.5 BILLION years.

pmckeealaska

If you think globhal warming is a myth, you should come up here to Alaska or anywhere else in the northern hemisphere. Global warming is a fact of life up here. I've seen changes in just the 18 years I've been here. If anyone wants to know about the science behind global climate change research, I suggest going to the web site for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I know some of the folks on the panel aqnd they are all well qualified scientists and objective. They have documented evidence of increasing global temperatures tied to the start of the industrial revolution. Does that mean they are saying that man is the sole cause of global warming? No, of course not. I would pay little attention to folks like Gore or Chriton on this issue and see what the folks that know the most about it are saying. Whether or not man is having a huge effect on the worlds climate is debatable, whether or not global warming is happening is not. This should not be a political issue. We should pay attention to the experts whose job it is to research these things, rather than to the Rush Limbaughs or Al Gores of the world who obviously have an agenda. Wake up people!

Demiurge

A fact without facts.

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote:

A fact without facts.

Oy... opinions need no backup!! :cool:

HBombToo

faster100 wrote:

Mine are just opinions, i need no backup

WOW! ...

I should try this statement the next time I'm trying to pitch my anual cap x requirements with the executives:D

faster100

twist it, turn it. mix it... I meant its my opinion, may not be factual according to you .. But its all mine.

Skynut

Ok here is the real skinny according to Skynut.

The Earth goes through cycles, it always has and always will.
Man has an effect on the planet. It would be ignorant to think we do not.
The Earth will recover from this next phase it is going through, it will not be destroyed by global warming. We may not live through this cycle but the Earth will certainly be here.
These are all my opnions.

Skynut

I also believe I read somewhere that the Earth has flipped magnetic poles many times in it's history and that could have an effect on the climate.

Also I think there is evidence that the polar caps used to be elsewhere on the planet.

I also seem to remember that the Earth has changed it's equatorial region by spinning out of balance until it settles into a new groove. This was supposedly caused by the polar caps moving toward the equator and throwing the Earth out of balance, once they melt the water balances everything out.

Many if not all of these things may be happening here and be the natural cause of all this hysteria.

bikezappa

We should pay attention to the experts whose job it is to research these things, rather than to the Rush Limbaughs or Al Gores of the world who obviously have an agenda. Wake up people![/QUOTE]

This makes very good sense to me. Would you listen to Rush's opinion on speakers? These people have an agenda. There are experts that have spent their life trying to ask questions and find answers regarding to Global Warming.

I don't know **** about global warming and you gentle reader shouldn't pay any attention to my opinions regarding global warming. People living in Northen climates don't need a therometer to know something is changing.

The question now is why?

ND13

I know what this thread needs.......MORE COWBELL!!!!!

Demiurge

Nah, too much Methane.

Shizelbs

Lol.