Global warming/energy crisis

[Jacobs]

This is my first post, and I'm a somewhat recent listener to Hannity, a person whom I have grown a deep respect for whether I agree or not or in this case... just don't know. I need some real information about the global warming controversy, you hear about it all the time, and Sean obviously thinks its a bunch of crap. Are there studies that support this and where? I also read today about a Prof. John Beddington of the UK warning of a global crisis by 2030 that threatens mass shortages of food, energy and water. Goes on to say it is to be impacted greatly by climate change and backs it up with info from the United Nations Environment Programme. How much validity is there to this and why or why not? I just see so many directions to go in and I'm not sure what to do, who can I trust? Is there such a thing as unbiased reporting? Would Sean fall into that category? Don't think so.

[Alan J]

This is my first post, and I'm a somewhat recent listener to Hannity, a person whom I have grown a deep respect for whether I agree or not or in this case... just don't know. I need some real information about the global warming controversy, you hear about it all the time, and Sean obviously thinks its a bunch of crap. Are there studies that support this and where? I also read today about a Prof. John Beddington of the UK warning of a global crisis by 2030 that threatens mass shortages of food, energy and water. Goes on to say it is to be impacted greatly by climate change and backs it up with info from the United Nations Environment Programme. How much validity is there to this and why or why not? I just see so many directions to go in and I'm not sure what to do, who can I trust? Is there such a thing as unbiased reporting? Would Sean fall into that category? Don't think so.

Global warming is a really sticky issue. There's so much opinion and misinformation floating around on the internets and elsewhere to wade through that it's well nigh impossible to make an informed decision regarding it one way or the other. My advice is to listen to scientists, and only scientists, on the issue, and then only the ones who provide solid evidence supporting the things they say (because there are unfortunately a few scientists out there, on both sides, saying things they should know better than to say).

As a general rule, when you hear people saying that global warming is going to cause the world to end, raise sea levels by twenty meters, causes massive hurricanes that wipe out entire countries, etc, they're exaggerating and misrepresenting the science. Conversely, when you hear people say that global warming isn't happening and is all an enormous conspiracy, we have no effect on it if it is, and if we do there's nothing we could do about it, and if there were we shouldn't do it because it will be all good, etc, are also exaggerating a misrepresenting the science. These people can generally be dismissed.

There are few news sources I would trust to be completely unbiased, and fewer still internet news and Blog sites and radio talk shows. These places can certainly be good sources of information, but only if you have a well tuned BS detector and are able to identify bias in reporting.

The best place to start looking for information is in the peer reviewed journals. Although they can often be extremely technical and difficult for us laypeoples to understand, they are certainly the best way of going right to the source, as it were, and seeing what scientists have to say and what evidence they're saying it on.

Go ahead and start poking around the interwebs. There is a boatload of information available. Just remember to always question what you're reading, and ask yourself what evidence is available to support, and how strong that evidence is. A good place to start looking into the whole thing would be the IPCC Assessment reports. You can read them for free online here: Clicky (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm). These reports are carefully prepared by scientists and are a composite of climate change research published in scientific journals. They'll at least provide you with a relatively stable launching point to study the issue further.

[Jacobs]

Thank you Alan, you seem to be a very informed person. I'll check out the link. How do you feel this affects political agendas? Do you feel Sean Hannity has his own agenda with this issue? Not that I want to attack him, but the conservative movement seems to have some very abrupt, forceful statements about some issues and this is one of them. I want to know where Sean is getting his information.

[Jacobs]

To be clear here, I'm not only looking for facts and unbiased reporting. I also realize the importance of opinion and I want to know what there is to be said about this. Please, tell me what you think and why.

[PercyVere]

To be clear here, I'm not only looking for facts and unbiased reporting. I also realize the importance of opinion and I want to know what there is to be said about this. Please, tell me what you think and why.You'll see lots of talk about the consensus scientific view ... whether scientists agree with the IPCC or not.

The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. Professional societies include American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Research Council (US), Network of African Science Academies, and Royal Meteorological Society (UK).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#noteb

The counter argument is that a few thousand scientists dissent from the above consensus ... OK, but the world has millions of scientists, finding a few to support just about any viewpoint is never a problem.

[Panhead0422]

It might be slightly easier to believe in global warming warnings if we had just not gone through the same bovine defecation during the seventies and early eighties. The air seems to be just as hot and the stench is just as foul as it was twenty or thirty years ago.

[Lee Kington]

The best place to start looking for information is in the peer reviewed journals. wrong....

peer reviewed papers today only signify, for the most part, that they are officially sanctioned bad science approved by a select few.

The LAST source of information would be the IPCC report.... a pack of false information written by policiticans and political appointees assigned to the propaganda machine.

[drylok]

Don't waste fuel and energy, don't litter and recycle when possible or convenient to you.

Other than that, it's pretty arogant to think that humans can control the climate and there are so many varibles how in the hell is anyone ever going to be able to illustrate any profound conclusion?

[PercyVere]

It might be slightly easier to believe in global warming warnings if we had just not gone through the same bovine defecation during the seventies and early eighties. The air seems to be just as hot and the stench is just as foul as it was twenty or thirty years ago.Are you referring to the global cooling nonsense of the 70s? If so, you can forget that as there was never a scientific consensus on the matter ... it was just the media having a frenzy, but there was no scientific backing to the notion.

[PercyVere]

Don't waste fuel and energy, don't litter and recycle when possible or convenient to you.

Other than that, it's pretty arogant to think that humans can control the climate and there are so many varibles how in the hell is anyone ever going to be able to illustrate any profound conclusion?You think the activity of 6 billion humans can't affect climate? Are you for real?

[PercyVere]

wrong....

peer reviewed papers today only signify, for the most part, that they are officially sanctioned bad science approved by a select few.

The LAST source of information would be the IPCC report.... a pack of false information written by policiticans and political appointees assigned to the propaganda machine.Lame ... attacking the scientific method, attacking the messengers ... you can surely do better.

[Lee Kington]

Lame ... attacking the scientific method, attacking the messengers ... you can surely do better.

Just a few of my recent ones....

12,000 Years of Warming: Say What?

Archibald’s Predictions of Solar Cycle 24

Brutal Attack On America

Current limitations in alternative energy

Democide

Fuel Poverty

Funding Grab Under Obama

GW Debate / Schlesinger vs Christy

Is Hansen Cheating?

Is ignoring potential dangerous climate non-specific genocide?

Man, Global Warming, and Truths

More on Finnish Records & A new Hathaway Solar 24 Prediction

My Solar 24 vs Hathaway’s

NSIDC Data Error / More Ice Than Reported

Obama Appoints Socialist / Hansen recommends Redistribution of Wealth

Obama To “Stop” Climate Change!

Public Priorities & Climate Change

Science - Ethic and Responsibility

Seeking the CO2 connection?

Sloppy ‘Science’ ; Scientific and Political Negligence

The Excluded Data

The Next Glacial Period; When?

The Next Glacial Period; When? Part 2

The Next Glacial Period; When? Part 3

The Next Glacial Period; When? Part 4

The Present, Antarctica, The 1930s, & Reality

The Story Of Glaciers

Trends in Yearly CO2 Increase


Now then.... how much time have you spent dedicated to the issue?

[Cav Scout]

You think the activity of 6 billion humans can't affect climate? Are you for real?

You think the INactivity of 6 billion humans can change a natural global cycle? Are you for real?

[Cav Scout]

Are you referring to the global cooling nonsense of the 70s? If so, you can forget that as there was never a scientific consensus on the matter ... it was just the media having a frenzy, but there was no scientific backing to the notion.

Yes actually there was, the same type of Al Gorbal kooks that dreamed this nonsense up. I remember it well...

They blamed that one on Right Guard and Aqua Net.

[Cav Scout]

Couple of silly ass wind turbines and solar panels and you bet! Problem solved.

LMAO!

[Matthewobamahater]

Lame ... attacking the scientific method, attacking the messengers ... you can surely do better.


It can't stand up with out lies. NO warming in 8 years at all and the models are way off by about .5c the last 8-10 years. Tell me what data supports it? Models, NO. Global temperature data, NO. Not a damn thing as far as I can see. Pull your head out of this lie and think for your self, or your welcome to come up with soild support besides the bs that is already being shown wrong.

[Matthewobamahater]

Are you referring to the global cooling nonsense of the 70s? If so, you can forget that as there was never a scientific consensus on the matter ... it was just the media having a frenzy, but there was no scientific backing to the notion.

If you want to call a few thousand sciencist and a lot of economic PHD scientific backing than Global warming doesn't have soild support at all being that 30,000 sciencist have came out in said it was BS!

[PercyVere]

Yes actually there was, the same type of Al Gorbal kooks that dreamed this nonsense up. I remember it well...

They blamed that one on Right Guard and Aqua Net.If, like you say, there exists peer reviewed scientific output which supports the 70s notion of global cooling, then let's be having it ...

[Ignotus]

As a general rule, when you hear people saying that global warming is going to cause the world to end, raise sea levels by twenty meters, causes massive hurricanes that wipe out entire countries, etc, they're exaggerating and misrepresenting the science. Conversely, when you hear people say that global warming isn't happening and is all an enormous conspiracy, we have no effect on it if it is, and if we do there's nothing we could do about it, and if there were we shouldn't do it because it will be all good, etc, are also exaggerating a misrepresenting the science. These people can generally be dismissed.


Don't listen to Alan, he is basically telling you to use flawed reasoning. The truth could very well be at one of the extremes...

"False Compromise:

if one does not understand a debate, it must be "fair" to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of "balanced" coverage.

"Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between."

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#compromise

[tinydancer]

Lame ... attacking the scientific method, attacking the messengers ... you can surely do better.

Jim Hansen from NASA is insane.

He says Barack Obama only has 4 years left to SAVE THE EARTH.

And now he's saying that the democratic process isn't working for climate change and PROTESTS AND DIRECT ACTIONmust start taking place around the world.

When you put a plan in place like cap and trade, you don't reduce greenhouse gasses. It's a scam. All that happens is "you pay to play and pollute".

That's whats so pathetically funny. No one cares about cleaning up the planet. It's just a way to make money and control companies.

Hansen is nuts. Oh and BTW I don't trust anyone on the planet that takes George Soros money.

[Lee Kington]

Jim Hansen from NASA is insane.


Hansen was mentioned often in presentations at last weekends ICCC convention. His former boss called Hansen an embarassment to NASA again during his. Monckton also mentioned him, including is a good part of this compiled tease .....

For those of you who have not looked at any of the ICCC presentations and others that may want a 'tease' to post elsewhere I have compiled some excerpts from Christopher Monckton's presentation. File size is 11mb and the video is only about 4 minutes of his 25 minute presentation.

Monckton presentation tease LINK. (http://s247.photobucket.com/albums/gg136/BigLee57/?action=view&current=ICCCMonkTease.flv)

[tinydancer]

Hansen was mentioned often in presentations at last weekends ICCC convention. His former boss called Hansen an embarassment to NASA again during his. Monckton also mentioned him, including is a good part of this compiled tease .....

For those of you who have not looked at any of the ICCC presentations and others that may want a 'tease' to post elsewhere I have compiled some excerpts from Christopher Monckton's presentation. File size is 11mb and the video is only about 4 minutes of his 25 minute presentation.

Monckton presentation tease LINK. (http://s247.photobucket.com/albums/gg136/BigLee57/?action=view&current=ICCCMonkTease.flv)

I find it deeply disturbing that a so called scientist is making headlines by saying the Democratic process isn't working, calling for demonstrations and actions and calling for a complete moratorium on coal fired power stations .

How sane is this?

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world.

That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth.
Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

For me, the moment I heard "the science is in, the debate is over" I knew that global warming was a political agenda and not science.

Oh, and common sense just dictates when accu weather et al can't forecast the next 7 days correctly, I'm sure as hades not going to buy into a 50 year forecast.

[Cav Scout]

If, like you say, there exists peer reviewed scientific output which supports the 70s notion of global cooling, then let's be having it ...

You may feel free to go to the library and do all the back reading you wish.
You may feel free to give me an order

Me actually following an order given by you is the least likely thing happening I can imagine...

I would be willing to bet the arctic melts before...

[Alan J]

Don't listen to Alan, he is basically telling you to use flawed reasoning. The truth could very well be at one of the extremes...

"False Compromise:

if one does not understand a debate, it must be "fair" to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of "balanced" coverage.

"Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between."

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#compromise

That's a fair point. The truth could well be at one of the extremes. However, in this debate the people representing those extremes will as a general rule distort, misunderstand, and misrepresent the science (see as examples nearly every post from a self proclaimed skeptic in this thread). Thus, one must use great caution when accepting what they say.

[Alan J]

You may feel free to go to the library and do all the back reading you wish.
You may feel free to give me an order

Me actually following an order given by you is the least likely thing happening I can imagine...

I would be willing to bet the arctic melts before...

In a rational discussion, the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence for the things he or she says. Percy's demand for evidence certainly isn't unreasonable, and if you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously, you'd do well to meet it. (If you don't care to have a reasonable discussion, and aren't interested in being taken seriously, by all means, continue as you were.)

[Alan J]

wrong....

peer reviewed papers today only signify, for the most part, that they are officially sanctioned bad science approved by a select few.

The LAST source of information would be the IPCC report.... a pack of false information written by policiticans and political appointees assigned to the propaganda machine.

That isn't true, of course. Peer review isn't perfect, but it's better by a mile than no quality control at all. I suspect you think the peer review process is corrupt almost wholly because what's being published doesn't agree with you.

Also, as has been pointed innumerable times, the IPCC reports aren't written by politicians, they're written by scientists.

[Panhead0422]

Are you referring to the global cooling nonsense of the 70s? If so, you can forget that as there was never a scientific consensus on the matter ... it was just the media having a frenzy, but there was no scientific backing to the notion.

Do you mean "as is the case today?":whistle::whistle:

[Samm]

That's a fair point. The truth could well be at one of the extremes. However, in this debate the people representing those extremes will as a general rule distort, misunderstand, and misrepresent the science (see as examples nearly every post from a self proclaimed skeptic in this thread). Thus, one must use great caution when accepting what they say.

Which is exactly why we use great caution regarding pretty much everything you post. :razz:

[Samm]

That isn't true, of course. Peer review isn't perfect, but it's better by a mile than no quality control at all. I suspect you think the peer review process is corrupt almost wholly because what's being published doesn't agree with you.

Also, as has been pointed innumerable times, the IPCC reports aren't written by politicians, they're written by scientists.

The predominant reason cited by the hundreds of scientists who fled the IPCC was that their science was distorted, manipulated and edited by the Politicians and then returned to them to be redone to match the Executive Summary, which was written by the Politicians. With the wholesale departure of dissenting scientific voices, the remaining scientist, who apparently had no problem with the ES, because presumably it was consistent with their AGW beliefs, became an inbred pool of "peer reviewers" of each other's work thus completing the perversion of the Scientific Method with regard to the IPCC reports.

If at that time there was any doubt, the IPCC completely lost credibility when they held their conference in Indonesia last year and "prohibited" dissenting voices from being heard. They, like Al Gore, have declared the debate to be over, further saying that now was the time to come up with solutions not to question the "consensus" position (meaning: we voted; you lost.) So much for the scientific method and scientific intedgrity...