Originally posted by

Jack Morris '64

I just bought a Prius!

Those are cute!

Originally posted by

Jack Morris '64

I just bought a Prius!

How is your new death trap? Personally, I drive a truck based somewhat on need, but also for safety and security.

Dustin
Class of 2005

Originally posted by

DJK

Fact 1: Global warming is currently an untested, unproven scientific theory based on circumstantial evidence of warming. Even if the earth is warming, there is no hard scientific proof that CO2 is the cause.

Fact 2: 4 billion years of Earth's history (not 150 or 100,000, but 4,000,000,000) shows that the planet has a climate that is constantly changing.

Fact 3: If you really believe that global warming is a proven fact, then you don't understand science. Read the IPCC documents and count the number of "likely's" and "very likely's".

As for fact 1, you might as well claim there is no hard scientific proof for evolution. If you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, go live on Venus.

As for fact 2, how many species have come and gone during the past 3 billion years? I don't know of any hard scientific evidence that says that humans are exempt from extinction. I don't think we will have any problem with global warming in the end. We just need better solar power collection and battery technology. Unfortunately, you have to be an "environmentalist" to argue that we should just replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. It is such a no brainer. If we took all the money and people we already sent to Iraq, we would be much farther along is solving this problem for the world. Surely, increasing taxes to raise the equivalent amount of money to support such research is well worth it. Wouldn't you agree?

Fact 3. Faith in your world view without consideration of the conclusions of a very large majority of people who understand the science is not prudent. I wouldn't put someone like you in charge of my money.

Originally posted by

DJK

Fact 1: Global warming is currently an untested, unproven scientific theory based on circumstantial evidence of warming. Even if the earth is warming, there is no hard scientific proof that CO2 is the cause.

Fact 2: 4 billion years of Earth's history (not 150 or 100,000, but 4,000,000,000) shows that the planet has a climate that is constantly changing.

Fact 3: If you really believe that global warming is a proven fact, then you don't understand science. Read the IPCC documents and count the number of "likely's" and "very likely's".

I'm confused...when the IPCC says, "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world" what do you think they mean? That the earth is not getting warmer?


or when they say,"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" are you suggesting that they don't mean the warming is caused by people?

oh, by the way, according to the IPCC footnote "very likely" means with 90-99% certainty....Not exactly the best odds if you're betting against it....

Originally posted by

mike

Could it be, as several scientific studies support, that much of our warming is do to the cyclical nature of Earth's orbit that brings it closer to the sun in some centuries and increased solar flares and disruptions.

Please think for yourself. Remember their was a scientific majority that though global cooling was a problem in the 70s, thought the world was flat, and that everything revolved around the Earth. We can't predict the weather for next week what makes you think these same models get better as the time interval increases?

More recent studies, including one published last week in the Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Science demonstrate a period of decreased solar output from the mid-1970s through the early 1990s, and yet global temperatures increased during that time. Here's the news article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm. If increased "solar flares and disruptions" are the cause of global warming, how come the planet warmed during a period of decreased solar output?

The field of climatology did not really begin until the 1970s. Up to that point, many people believed the Earth was cooling. They came to these conclusions using data gathered from disparate sources. When climatologists started working together with atmospheric scientists and when technology evolved enough to allow scientists to use computer generated mathematical models to predict global climate patterns the entire field was turned upon its head. In the 1980s climatologists changed their predictions from a cooling Earth to a warming Earth based upon this new data. Experimental data, gathered from sites around the world using a variety of different methods supports the assertations that the Earth is warming.

Oceanography data show an increase in the amount of cardon dioxide dissolved in sea water around the globe. The ratio of oxygen isotopes in corals, as well as carbonate compensation depths and sea water pH have changed worldwide. This is all due to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Atmospheric carbon dioxide ends up in the oceans. This information is all available in the primary literature.

Are you really comparing science, as it is practiced today, to the Middle Ages? During the Middle Ages technology was not quite what it is today. After all you don't see too many alchemists receiving NSF funding these days.

Please read the primary literature.

Originally posted by

DJK

Dan Ebbole

Hell no! Will the research only focus on the current global warming theory, or will scientists be allowed to test other hypotheses?

Anyone, scientist or not, is welcome to test any hypothesis they wish. The challenge is to prove, using the scientific method and experimental data, that your hypothesis is correct. Do you have any experimental data that either refutes global warming or of a cause other than anthropogenic sources? If so, please publish your data! If your evidence is robust it will stand up to peer review and you'll be guaranteed to make the 6 o'clock news.

Originally posted by

DJK

Kelly

"Do you have any experimental data that either refutes global warming or of a cause other than anthropogenic sources?"

I wish I did, but I am not a climate scientist. All I know is that there is alot of people who are making some claims that are unjustified by the amount of uncertainty coming from the experts.

I'm sure that if you talk to the professors at TAMU who are climate scientists they will be able to explain to you why they believe human activities are playing a role in climate change. They are your professors and you are paying their salaries. You certainly have a right to challenge them and have them explain their position to you. Perhaps you can explain to your professors why they are so wrong on this issue.