Here are two articles that sum up the one I posted above and are much easier to read. One is from the Canadian National Post, the other from USAToday.

http://www.nationalpost.com/financi...AC-50D9F895E7DE

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/...29/5631011s.htm

This is a common argument made by the right. Their have been several studies are reports released that suggest global warming is a construction of left wing extremists. However their have been many more substantial and much more believable reports and studies conducted that have shown global warming IS occuring. Also looking at the two places you posted articles from (USA today and the National Post) Im inclined to ignore it anyways.

___________________
If anyone can get me the following records please contact me:

DJ Tiesto - Battleship Grey (Miro remix)
Tilt - Invisible (Tilt's human mix)

If the only major talking point these new reports have provided is that Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph is unreliable, then they aren't really saying anything new.

This is the "Hockey Stick" graph:



An explanation of why this graph is unreliable can be found here:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Basically Mann took modern day temperatures (taken using modern technology, such as satellites, sensitive global climatic equipment and so on) and compared them with his own interpretation of climate trends found in tree rings dating back centuries. What he was doing, to put it simply, was comparing apples with oranges and ended up with results (namely the results of his "tree-ring" study) that are contradicted by historical records and historic climate trends found in other places, like ice-cores and so on.

Now I'm not sure how integral Mann's study was to the Kyoto protocol (that is, whether demonstrating this study to be false also immediately falsifies the Kyoto Protocol) but I don't think that the undermining of this study on its own in any way detracts from the evidence currently supporting global warming or the need to address it before it becomes a problem. Before I would be comfortable dismissing the reality of global warming I'd need an adequate explanation for the short-term trends I posted in the other thread (that is the increase in CO^2 emmissions, the increase in global temperatures over the past few decades and the reduction of diurnal temperatures over the same period).

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

The problem with looking at short-terms trends is that they are unable to tell us whether they are in fact the result of man made by-products or are merely naturally occuring temperature changes. To me it equates to living in a house for an entire year, stepping outside for the last second of that year, and based on that one second of data trying to formulate climate trendse for the entire year. It makes no real sense. Again, I'm not saying that we should "poop" on the environment, merely that it is impossible to tell if humans really have an impact on the environment on such a large scale as climate patterns.

This is not the only environmental issue I see being blown out of proportion with either faulty of missing factual data. The ozone layer and its "hole" are another one in which sensationalistic journalism and selective data have given the public only one side of the story.

Here is something I find interesting, people saying that a depletion of the ozone layer would lead to higher skin cancer rates. (I work at a cancer hospital, so this is something near and dear to me) There are three types of ultra-violet radiation, UVA,UVB and UVC. The ozone layer can only effectively block UVB and UVC, not UVA. While UVB has been shown to cause both basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma, both are perfectly curable! The only deadly skin cancer type caused by environmental factors is malignant melanoma, caused by UVA, which is completely unblocked by even the the thickest of ozone layers.

Might that graph simply be a result of population growth and other naturally occuring, rather unavoidable phenomena? I'd like to see some more overlays on that graph that shows global population trends. It would seem a bit silly to base a global warming theory solely on a few million people driving more SUV's in the last 10 years, when that graph also shows that there's a lot more going on since the 'exponential' upward trend was in place several decades ago.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono The problem with looking at short-terms trends is that they are unable to tell us whether they are in fact the result of man made by-products or are merely naturally occuring temperature changes. To me it equates to living in a house for an entire year, stepping outside for the last second of that year, and based on that one second of data trying to formulate climate trendse for the entire year. It makes no real sense. Again, I'm not saying that we should "poop" on the environment, merely that it is impossible to tell if humans really have an impact on the environment on such a large scale as climate patterns.

Yep, exactly. I said pretty much exactly the same thing on the other Global Warming thread (titled "US - Killing Itself?", just about to drop off the first page if you missed it the first time round): we just haven't had the technology capable of measuring global temperature and climate trends available until the past few decades, far too short a period of time to construct any meaningful, definitive trends.

Now I'm not saying the issue hasn't been blown out of proportion by the certain environmentalists or journalists, and I'm certainly not saying that I or anyone else has definitive proof that global warming is occuring, but I am saying that there is some worrying evidence showing the sorts of short-mid term trends we'd expect to see if anthropic global warming was currently occurring. Like I said, if you (or anyone else) can provide a satisfactory explanation for these anomolies then I'll be happy to drop the issue right now, but in either case there are still the following facts that need addressing: CO^2 concentration continues to increase, many nations are becoming more and more industrialised (especially the old 2nd and 3rd world countries) which will only increase CO^2 emmissions even further and once we hit a certain point - due to the properties carbon-dioxide possesses - we will begin to see irreversible climate change. Now no-one can say where this certain point lies, or even whether humans are capable of reaching it, but that's no excuse not to put a lid on it all before we find out the hard way (and, from what you were saying, you probably agree with me here).

As for the Ozone Layer / Solar radiation issue, I'm really not clued in enough to comment.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

I took a lot of stat based courses in college, so I'm always very hesistant to associate correlation with causality. That being said, however, with something as overwhelmingly influential and important such as the environment, I think that it is prudent to err on the side of caution. No, we don't exactly know everything there is to know about global warming and its causes. Yes we have SOME data to indicate that CO2 emmissions have a correlation with rising temperatures. No we do not have enough data to imply causality. However, you don't keep taking a poison if you THINK it's bad for you and wait until you're absolutely 100% certain that it IS bad for you. I think the prudent thing to do in this case is to reduce our artificial emmissions into the environment until we can say with certainty whether these trends in temperature are caused by us or by the the natural environment itself. The alternative, to remain oblivious to these startling indications, would be catastrophic. Far more catastrophic than it is to say slap a 2 cent green tax on all gas purchased to increase C02 output efficiency or whatever.

my $.02

edit: err yea kind of what renegade said

___________________
Retro ...

I think that's the good, pragmatic approach to take, Occ.

Even if there was no conclusive proof of Global Warming, wouldn't it still make sense to try and cut our atmospheric emissions? The smog levels have gone up drastically within the last few decades, as have increased levels of bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

The pollution levels here in Baltimore were in the 'red' more in the last year than any of the preceding ones, and it even hit 'purple' on more than a few occasions.

Be happy that you don't live in Mexico City or Los Angeles!

http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/p.../mexico/air.htm

Mexico City Smog:

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Even if there was no conclusive proof of Global Warming, wouldn't it still make sense to try and cut our atmospheric emissions? The smog levels have gone up drastically within the last few decades, as have increased levels of bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory illnesses. The pollution levels here in Baltimore were in the 'red' more in the last year than any of the preceding ones, and it even hit 'purple' on more than a few occasions. Be happy that you don't live in Mexico City or Los Angeles! http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/p.../mexico/air.htm Mexico City Smog:

True. I have noticed more smog in my town in the last 10 years, though population growth here has also exploded in the last 10 years. I tend to think that our pollen problem is more dangerous than the smog problem! The pollen count here is routinely over 2500 when 200 is considered high (I admittedly fudged the stats, but comparatively speaking, that's about the ratio) in the spring. Allergies can go nuts around here!

Like I said, I have nothing against environmental protection. What I do have a problem with is an alarmist media that sensationalizes stories without throughly exploring both sides of the issue, or even the facts in general. I also have a problem when environmental efforts, such as the 1998 Kyoto accord which would have such a great economic impact, are not based on sound science. Save the planet yes, but first do it in a scientifically sound way, and then in an as economically friendly as possible way too.