Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change

[Pura Vida]

If you house is on fire and someone you don't like comes to tell you about it, is it still on fire?

From American Scientist...

http://www.sigmaxi.org/about/news/UNSEGonline.pdf

[senormechanico]

Sez algore whom I have no respect for, and has a vested interest in acquiring lemming like followers.
Here's another one to chew on:

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

I'm going to quote Proverbs 14:7 here.

"Go from the presence of a man when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."

Bye

[Benny]

I trust your reference to lemming like followers was not a personal attack on me. I have read your alledged proof contradicting global warming data however it does not contain any proof whatsoever - just a has been scientist voicing his theory - at least Gore uses actual data obtained over the period of time in question using scientific methods and equipment - your disproof is simply hearsay and a feeble attempt to discredit based on supposition and assumption of a handfull of quasi-scientific people.

Let me pose this to you - do you feel it is OK to burn fossil fuels as anyone sees fit without trying to control the pollution it causes - some countries do - untill there is none left; slash and burn rainforests indiscriminantly; do not regulate vehicle emissions, etc and wait to see whether or not drastic climate change does occur or do you think it is a good idea to try and find alternate methods to stop polluting the air and possibly halt the damage we are doing to our environment and our health. Please give us your thoughtfull un-lemming like response to the pollution question.

Given your references for disproving global warming, I would say that the Proverbs quote is more applicable to them not having 'lips of knowledge.

[camaraderie]

Randy...how about 17000+ scientists who disagree that man-made global warming is a fact and have signed a petition to that effect and stated their reasons why.
Letter from Frederick Seitz - Global Warming Petition Project

Lot's of good reading for you there if you are really interested. More?? How about Dr. Fred Singer...Professor Emeritus of environmental researchat U. VA and first director of US Space Weather Satellite Project and current professor at George Mason U.
http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...balWarming.pdf

Oh...and there's a pretty good discussion of all the facts gore got wrong in the film on the same site as my first link. One need not resort to focusing on how he heats his house to engage in a discussion of the "facts" as he presents them.

I don't expect any of this will convince you Benny any more than your stuff will convince me. What I do hope to convey is that there is FAR from the universal scientific agreement on the issue that you seem to believe there is.

Finally...remember that in science...consensus is not truth...or the world would still be flat. What counts is what can be proven or replicated independently.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Benny

Those are cycles just like the earth used to have. The current warming trend is high due to man's influence and only over the last 50 to 60 years not thousands of years - please provide your data to disprove this.

We're not attacking you Benny, just voicing our opinion. Name calling is attacking, even if it IS in a quote!

"Those are cycles just like the earth used to have." Use to have? Or still do! Please provide data to Prove this ("over the last 50 to 60 years "). How do we know this is a high trend?? The only proof we have of any real weather was after the mid 1800's. All the rest is by scientists.

People who believe in theories do so to support their own agenda. Theories are just educated guesses but to teach them as a fact is under estimating the public’s intelligence. Some think that everyone is stupid and can be manipulated into believing theories (Darwinism).

Half of us believe that Mother earth goes thru warming/cooling periods. She just happens to be on a warming period. But when she goes out of heat, then she's going to get damn cold and I'm glad I won't be around for that, hopefully!

As for the theory that the warming is man made, is BS. There is no way anyone can prove either way. I agree we need to do something about controlling pollution. This all going to end some day whether we like it or not! Nothing lasts for ever. Ask the dinosaurs! And man was hardly around for that according to scientists. A nice volcano eruption could ruin a couple years of sailing. It could be tomorrow.

So we do what we can as good children and the rest is all up to Mom.

[Benny]

This site is a fair summary for you as to the facts about global warming and all the scientific communities who endorse it. As stated, there are very few dissenting scientists who believe otherwise - guess who - the oil company scietists - big surprise. Perhaps yopur data is dated or again theories and hearsay have persuaded you to believe otherwise however, you will see in this material the actual measurements taken and how they have escalated well beyond the normal ranges over the last 60 years.

Believe what you will but this is better science and is endorsed by most scientists worldwide.

BTW - Saying someone is a lemming is name calling or perhaps I am allowed to call someone else on this site say a pig or dog - am I?

[Benny]

Sorry - didn't copy - nere is the site

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Desert Sailors]

One has to question, a person (Gore for one) who profits from "the sky is falling" type of sensationalism.

No on disputes the fact that we mere humans have had some effect on our planet.

One might question the size of our collective ego's in assuming that as a group, we can in less than a 100 years of industrial growth, could alter the entire planets weather and cycles of change

Like in any court room, you will find supporters and "Experts" to justify each sides opinion.

Using God given logic, would tell you that in the short time that we have been industrialized, compared to the amount of time that the Earth was around prior to our existence as "controllers of the enviorment" that we really don't have that much control or effect on the entire planets cycles.

Again using a bit of God given logic, when we chart the previous millenium or more of global weather we will see diverse and changing patterns of heat, freeze, drought, plenty and so on..

There were times in the recored history of this planet that continents were in different places and are still moving, and that can't be attributed to our presence.

There were times in the recorded history that parts of the current known world that areas that are now arid, were once deeply covered in water, also areas that are now snow covered that were lush plains and savanahs.

There couldn't have been large heards/groups/whatever of dinosaurs, wooly mammoths or any other large herbavore with out that being so. Now most of the locations that those animals remains are found are in areas that are absolutely opposite of the domains that they enjoyed while alive...

SO, change, no matter how much we might dislike it, or think that we are masters of it, will happen !

We need to adjust our own lives to that fact, not try to alter God's creation to fit our wishes and egos.

I know this will draw a good number of bashers, but its simply my own opinion, not scientific, but probably as valid considering that man is trying to use computer models and atmospheric measuring devices to model a planets weather and cycyles that we don't fully understand in the first place and therefore cannot create a truly comprehensive computer model to judge it by.

JMHO
DesertSailors (waiting for the climate change so I can launch my boat )

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Benny

This site is a fair summary for you as to the facts about global warming and all the scientific communities who endorse it.

We're NOT disputing the global warming fact BUT disputing that it's man made! They can't prove that! Not in my book!................_/)

[Benny]

I am wondering from all those who feel that the science behind Gores presentation is invalid because he is making money from it. Is that notion common sense or nonsense? Is it wrong or void because someone has taken the lead in this problem and it challenges many of our beliefs, way of life and even financial futures or are some just trying to maintain the status quo because it is in their best interests for the moment.

The numbers Gore uses in his presentation are from many scientific sources with measurements of co2 levels having increased substationally over the last half century and the same with average temperatures, to ice cores from the Antarctic dating back 650,000 years which show how warm and cool the earth has been throughout that period. This is a long historical record that is not in dispute nor are the increase in greenhouse gases or temperature increase in dispute. There has never been in that period an average global temperature as high as the recent 50 years.

I am beginning to believe that those of you who don't believe in global warming have not seen the Gore movie or presentation and are choosing instead to believe the naysayers who are the ones that have a biased agenda to maintain the status quo. This issue has little to do with egos and everything to do with doing the necessary action to reverse our impact on the environment. Climate change and it's effects are happening right now in many ways - it's not a computer model or hypothesis. It goes back to my earlier question which no one answered - what do you personally feel about pollution and if how we are abusing the environment and resources is acceptable? If you do not feel we are polluting our planet and causing damage - no amount of facts are going to motivate you to do something about it - not even major climate disasters.

If we do not act with enough effort, all we can hope is that history and our children and grandchildren will not judge us too harshly when their lives will be drastically altered by climate change. I wonder if they will be able to sail and fish and do the many outdoor activities we enjoy - time will tell - let each of our consience be our guide.

[Boracay]

Frederick Seitz was born in San Francisco on July 4, 1911. He received his Bachelor’s degree from Stanford in 1932 and his Ph.D. from Princeton in 1934. He has written some classic works in physics including Modern Theory of Solids (1940), was co-editor of the series Solid State Physics (started in 1954), and examined the evolution of science in The Science Matrix (1992). He wrote his autobiography On The Frontier: My Life in Science in 1994 and published Stalin’s Captive: Nikolaus Riehl and the Soviet Race for the Bomb in 1995. The University of Illinois published his most recent book, Electronic Genie, The Tangled History of Silicon in Electronics (1997).

Now, leme see, thats one, only 16,999+ scientists to check on...

[Viking Sailor]

Climate change happens! Compared to the earths temperature history, our current temperatures are down right cold.

Considering where most of the biodiversity exist on the planet today I think an increase temperature might be a good thing for life on earth. Not all life to be sure, but life in general. Some humans might be displaced, but we are smart, strong, and have always had a natural wanderlust.

You can follow the link below to see a 500 million year history of the earths temperature:

Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Boracay

Frederick Seitz ...
Now, leme see, thats one, only 16,999+ scientists to check on...

Intersting choice. Dr. Seitz, of course, was an eminent condensed matter physicist, but not exactly the ideal poster-boy scientist for anthropogenic climate change skepticism.

A former President of the National Academy of Sciences (but the Academy disassociated itself from Seitz in 1998 when Seitz headed up a report designed to look like an NAS journal article(*1) saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate.), and President of Rockefeller University.

In the later role he developed, shall we say, a close relationship with the tobacco industry(*2), that somehow, later morphed into a close relationship with the fossil fuel industry. Both were remunerative, both personally and for organizations Seitz was associated with.

1. Scientific FRAUD

2. The Indisputable Corruption of Frederick Seitz, Disgraced, Malignant, And the Conspiracies he has been involved in.

[Pura Vida]

Me thinks a double standard is afoot. Using a 'Pay Per Finding' orginizations like The Hudson Institute or the Cato Institute as a base for critisizm is poor argument. Also while a PHD is certainly an impressive credential, unless it is a PHD in climatology, any argument is only that of a smart guy arguing a subject he is not trained in (economists are bad about this.) Two questions: If you are injured will you go to a PhD in English or Physics because he is a Doctor or to a trained physician? If lightning set your house on fire would you fuel it with some old garbage you wanted to burn because "it was a natural fire?"

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Me thinks a double standard is afoot. Using a 'Pay Per Finding' orginizations like The Hudson Institute or the Cato Institute as a base for critisizm is poor argument...

I'm not certain I understand the thrust of your opening comment. Could you elaboarate?