Prosecutions Coming for Global Warming Deniers?

[RiversideGator]

again, for the purposes of discussion, please confine your references to legitimate sources.  Attacks on Al Gore, and reprinting editorials from the Alaska Daily News by non climatologists do not prove your points.

1)  You are not in charge of this discussion and therefore you cannot limit what others post.  Nothing that I posted was an ad hominem attack in any case;
2)  You cannot declare some things legitimate and others not;
3)  Evidence of local weather patterns do not disprove GW but I can guarantee that if it were hot in Alaska and the ice cap was melting, you would post it.

[gatorback]

Although fiction the Movie The Day After Tomorrow is fun if you want to scare the young ones.
If you've not seen the movie, it covers all the current topics with lots of green screen fun.
Check it out at the Public Library it might be there if you want to see it for free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow

[RiversideGator]

As it happens, If you bothered to read the thread, you will see that I have agreed to stick to the same rules, and more importantly have.

You stating something does not constitute an "agreement".

Riverside.  These are the rules of this discussion if you wish to continue it.  Otherwise start a thread and talk your own damned head off.

Again, you are not in charge of this discussion and therefore you cannot limit what others post.  I will post what I deem legitimate and you post what you deem legitimate.  This is the way a debate works.

However, this conversation out of all the threads you have hijacked will be conducted with civility and according to a reasonable debate.  If you intend on being responded to, that is.  However if your intention is to simply prove yourself a troll with no real interest in the truth, then please by all means, show your true colors.

I am very interested in the truth.  And, I believe I have found it.  Also, regarding trolls, you are the one who recently engaged in name calling and other ad hominem attacks.  Focus on learning and discussing the facts and stop worrying about me.  Thanks.   

[BridgeTroll]

Into this discussion I have included a link to the IPCC report on the scientific underpinnings of Climate Change.  I have read it and believe I understand the material.

Has anyone else?

There has not been offered any other source material.

Still looking for additional evidence to be discussed.

I have read parts... I am familiar with what it is.  I have no problem refering to any area for clarification.  I have some reservation with using it as the base document since it argues GW in the affirmative already... but I can live with that.

[BridgeTroll]

Most definately... was hoping River would have remained.  I will need research help... .  I do however appreciate a less confrontational give and take conversation...

[RiversideGator]

Thanks river for showing your true colors and affirming that you are really interested in arguing rather than debating.

You apparently trust your own beliefs so little that you cannot be bothered to post them or you believe them to be scientifically indefensible.

I take it that you have not read the IPCC report and are therefore unqualified to post on it.

Your words and opinions apparently are to be counted for little as you do not have either the science or the character to defend them.

Perhaps Charleston has the ability to debate in a substantive way that isnt merely an opportunity to vent his many political opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

If not, then Im afraid you have ceded the argument by default.

Which leaves Bridge Troll and myself to continue.

Red herring alert!  I have posted my position on multiple occasions.  Please dont pretend that you dont know what it is and that therefore you have won the debate.  Your tactics really are quite transparent.   

[RiversideGator]

Into this discussion I have included a link to the IPCC report on the scientific underpinnings of Climate Change.  I have read it and believe I understand the material.

Has anyone else?

There has not been offered any other source material.

Still looking for additional evidence to be discussed.

Translation:  Accept my premises and then let's talk about them.   

[riverkeepered]

I have really got to hand it to Stephen for sticking in there for a month and trying to change the minds of people who will probably never accept that climate change is real, no matter how much evidence is thrown at them.  I am sure that Stephen will agree that we will probably never reach scientific consensus on this issue, and there is always the outside chance that we all are wrong.  However, the fact is that the vast majority of this planet's credible scientists have concluded based on an ever-growing body of evidence and scientific research that climate change is occuring and human activity is a significant contributor to this problem.  As more research continues to be done on climate change, the findings continue to reinforce and justify those conclusions.  In fact, many of the studies are finding that the impacts of climate change are actually occuring more rapidly and with more significant consequences than previously thought or predicted. 

Unfortunately, (back to the original post that started this thread) many large corporations (especially the oil companies) have spent millions of dollars trying to distort the facts and cloud the debate with misinformation and the perception of scientific uncertaintly. They have paid for junk science, funded think tanks, and relied on entertainers like Rush Limbaugh to confuse the American people and politicians, and the results are a reluctance to take any meaningful actions that will address this impending crisis.  Considering the suffering and economic hardship that so many people could experience and the significant environmental damage that has and could occur, this is not such a stretch to call these actions criminal.  The deniers who have deliberately created a smoke screen to protect their own financial interests have done so at the expense of other people and our planet. 

Let's face reality. This country and our politicians have taken action based on significantly less evidence and "proof" (does the Iraq war ring any bells?).  Are we really willing to roll the dice and take our chances that so many well-respected scientists on this planet might be wrong?  There is simply too much to lose. 

By addressing climate change (even if the scientific predictions are wrong), we would help strenghten our economy (and Lord knows we need help), protect our environment and human health, and move us towards energy independence.  Even if you don't buy into the climate change arguement, I hope you can at least recognize the need and the opportunity to create a more sustainable United States.  Call it what you will will. We have got to move beyond the debate and start taking actions that are necessary either way. 

[downtownparks]

I have been of the belief that the argument is being framed incorrectly by GW/energy independence advocates. There are several points that can and should be made that make the whole GW argument moot.

First. Will oil run out?

Answer is a simple yes. Be it tomm, 40 years, or 400 years, at some point the planet will not have the primary fuel for its economic engine. The sooner we find a renewable source of energy the better. (This then of course leads to the free market argument, but I think most of us can agree sometimes the free market needs a violent shove in the right direction)

Second. Should humans, regardless of their political tilt, be good wards of their environment?

Answer is, yes. Regardless of the implications of greenhouse gases and their effect on warming, we all know that emissions are bad for our health, bad for our children's health, and bad for our planets health, regardless of the GW issue.

Third, until alternative energy's supplement, replace, or oil depletes out right, is conservation a bad thing?

Certainly not. This is a place where government can have an effect, and in fact, its a legit function of government, as it related to energy policy. It can set gas standards, it can set smog and clean air standards, build bike and scooter lanes, and set speed limits, all outside of the GW debate.

Lastly, should city's focus on building denser cores, and focus on public transit?

I think most people on here, at the very least, agree with that statement.

As a person who tends to no buy into the GW hype, I am not only acknowledging all of these issues, but am acting on my own. I live in the urban core, I have sold my suv, downsized our other car, ride my bike to work, and am looking at possibly adding a scooter as a second vehicle.

You don't have to believe in human impact to GW for the rest to make sense.

[RiversideGator]

Is this article true?

Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole

Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic â€" and worrying â€" examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

Full Article

With one half or more of summer over, Arctic ice appears to be in very good shape still:





And:

2008-07-24
Ice at Spitsbergen (Barentsphoto.com)

More ice than expected in parts of the Arctic

New data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows that there is more ice than normal in the Arctic waters north of the Svalbard archipelago.

In most years, there are open waters in the area north of the archipelago in July month. Studies from this year however show that the area is covered by ice, the Meteorological Institute writes in a press release.

In mid-July, the research vessel Lance and the Swedish shp MV Stockholm got stuck in ice in the area and needed help from the Norwegian Coast Guard to get loose.

The ice findings from the area spurred surprise among the researchers, many of whom expect the very North Pole to be ice-free by September this year.

http://www.barentsobserver.com/?cat=16149&id=4498513

One more hysterical GW prediction disproved.   

[gatorback]

They sure do look good, but looks can be deceiving.  So in fantasy land, one disproves things simply by the way they look?

[civil42806]

Well I'm definitly a global warming skeptic, but found this article very intriguing.  Some actual research and possible break through in solar power.


http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2JLKEZDUPJZA0QSNDLSCKHA?articleID=209900956


Hey its real science!!!

[BridgeTroll]

I love the idea of solar but... It simply costs too much out of pocket and takes too long to break even.  I found this solar cost calculator... How about everyone check it out just to see what you think.  I selected a system to power my entire house rather than just a hot water system...

http://findsolar.com/index.php?page=rightforme

[downtownparks]

This is the problem with most energy sources. The thing that made oil king was how cheap it was. As that is no longer the case, hopefully some time and money will be spent further developing and adapting solar, hydrogen, and other renewable energy sources.

Just because I dont 100% believe that man is responsible for the warming trends (Although after looking at the Chinese photos from another thread, Its harder to argue) doesnt mean I want to stay a slave to oil, or not work to develop renewable energy.

[gatorback]

Cool.  I honestly feel if we're going to error, we should error on the side you mention above.