Humans have such a large impact on the environment...

[spazdude222]

I agree that we have a large impact. We keep improving nature to make it fit our needs. HI-O!

[bugman]

I guess science is now just group think. If you disagree with the “Group” you will be coerced into submission.

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

06:09 PM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007

By VINCE PATTON, kgw.com

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

KGW photo

Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are “very likely” the cause.

“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” Taylor asserts.

Taylor has held the title of “state climatologist” since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

Climatologist

Should the state climatologist lose his title?

No

Yes

View Results

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon’s policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor’s contradictions interfere with the state’s stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

“He is Oregon State University’s climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon’s climatologist,” Kulongoski said.

Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a “bit shocked” by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.

In an interview he told KGW, “There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don’t believe that’s true.” He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.

A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.

Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it’s important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. “Absolutely not,” Avakian said, “I’ve never met Mr. Taylor and if he’s got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies.”

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

The Governor says, “I just think there has to be somebody that says, ‘this is the state position on this.’”

(KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)

Scary stuff.

[steveyo]

@bugman

I realize this is an Opinion piece, but it is worth a read.

Hey, I was gonna let this thing die, and you go and post another skeptic’s opinion piece that I have to discredit?

OK…

In 1995 Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; He also testified before a Senate committee and his trip was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.

[BillyTheMountain]

All lies and jest!

Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. OOOoooooo

–Simon & Garfinkle The Boxer

[bugman]

[johnfoss]

@steveyo

In 1995 Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; He also testified before a Senate committee and his trip was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.

Owned again! Isn’t it interesting when you follow the money?

This applies on both sides of course. A large group of scientists does stand the chance of garnering huge research budgets based on the amount of fear they create. Some scientists are better at lobbying, schmoozing and just plain communicating than others. If you refuse to acknowledge this you are not being objective.

What to do? Well, I guess we can look for the scientists, in peer-reviewed papers and articles, who refute the general warming ideas. And Steveyo will dig into their pasts to see if they have alterial motives…

[steveyo]

@GeorgeWBush

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1994. 1998 has been the hottest year on record and 2007 is predicted to be the next hottest year. Since the industrial period began around 150 years ago there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in the last 500,000 years.

The U.S. is the world’s largest polluter and only accounts for 4% of the world’s population. Annually the U.S. produces about 24% of all carbon dioxide emissions. China, which in comparison to the U.S., has about 21% of the Earth’s population and accounts for only 13% of all carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. must help solve this problem.

In 1998, the White House Council of Economic Advisors determined the cost of the Kyoto Protocol to be no more than a few tenths of one percent of gross domestic product in 2010.

The cause of global warming is an issue to some critics who say that global warming to this extent is natural. However, a report released from the U.N. in January, 2007, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is made up of 2,500 researches from more than 130 countries, has concluded that there is at least a 90% chance that the dominant cause of global warming in the last 50 years has been caused by humans.

Preach it GW!

[bugman]

@GeorgeWBush

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1994. 1998 has been the hottest year on record and 2007 is predicted to be the next hottest year. Since the industrial period began around 150 years ago there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in the last 500,000 years.

The U.S. is the world’s largest polluter and only accounts for 4% of the world’s population. Annually the U.S. produces about 24% of all carbon dioxide emissions. China, which in comparison to the U.S., has about 21% of the Earth’s population and accounts for only 13% of all carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. must help solve this problem.

In 1998, the White House Council of Economic Advisors determined the cost of the Kyoto Protocol to be no more than a few tenths of one percent of gross domestic product in 2010.

The cause of global warming is an issue to some critics who say that global warming to this extent is natural. However, a report released from the U.N. in January, 2007, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is made up of 2,500 researches from more than 130 countries, has concluded that there is at least a 90% chance that the dominant cause of global warming in the last 50 years has been caused by humans.

90% chance? Voodoo Science. That is the biggest bullshIt statistic I have ever seen.

I believe GW on this about as much as I believe Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, Nanci Pelosi(Who is currently trying to get access to a jet that will burn more fuel and create more CO2 emissions in one trip, than my SUV will create in my lifetime.) Steveyo were is your critical thinking and analysis of these statements? Just because you agree with it, you forgo any analysis?

Scared and unsure how to fight terrorists, they confront “climate change,” which only requires spending trillions of other people’s dollars on something that may not need fixing or may not be fixable. No wonder some of these people chain themselves to trees - they think money grows on them.

[steveyo]

@bugman

90% chance? Voodoo Science. That is the biggest bullshIt statistic I have ever seen.

I believe GW on this about as much as I believe Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, Nanci Pelosi(Who is currently trying to get access to a jet that will burn more fuel and create more CO2 emissions in one trip, than my SUV will create in my lifetime.) Steveyo were is your critical thinking and analysis of these statements? Just because you agree with it, you forgo any analysis?

Bugman, I forwent analysis on what GW said, because there was no opinion involved, as he just stated facts.

Do you disagree that the US has 4% of the world’s population, or that it burns 24% of the fossil fuel? Do you disagree that the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1994, or the paleo-ice records that empirically show that at least one greenhouse gas - CO2 - is at the highest concentration in 500K yrs?

These are merely facts, published, peer-reviewed, and agreed upon by all the scientists in the world. Save the few cherry-picked deniers sought out by the companies that stand to lose near-term profits due to global warming. I choose to believe the vast, vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations rather than a few oil-industry funded nay-sayers.

As danger_uni (a scientist) said in another, similar thread “there is better concensus about this among scientists than any other comparitively complex topic in history”. If 2500 scientists from 130 different countries had a conference and agreed to say that there is at least a 90% chance that the dominant cause of global warming in the last 50 years has been caused by humans, why wouldn’t you believe them? You call that voodoo science?

Do you think that all 2500 of the scientists from 130 different countries are being paid off for their opinions by profit-motivated environmentalists? Do you really think they stand to gain something if they’re believed?

Edit: BTW, I think GeorgeWBush is BTM.

[UniGeezer]

Howabout moving on to the question: What are you(meaning everybody in general that believes in GWarming) personally prepared to do to solve the “global warming” problem? Are you willing to give up your car, (could always just use your uni to go everywhere!) or anything else that produces C02, like Asthma inhalers?! Yep, you heard right! http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/05/asthma_sufferer_1.php

And like Bugman accurately pointed out, <<Nanci Pelosi, who is currently trying to get access to a jet that will burn more fuel and create more CO2 emissions in one trip, than my SUV will create in my lifetime.>> I wonder if she’s going to walk the walk and reconsider!

Oh, and why are you not talking about this? Too crazy sounding? Just read it. In a nutshell, here’s the defining excerpt:

“But in almost every case, the world’s 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.”

Full story: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

[UniGeezer]

@GeorgeWBush

It is an issue addressing each person individually, but more so ever, it is an issue addressing our nation and our business leaders. The technology is out there to help lower the emissions of greenhouse gases. GMC has been working on a hydrogen powered car, the only problem is they don’t have the money to mass produce this without help from stock. They need people to buy into it. Power stations have been working to lower pollution, but there is a lot more they can do. Another energy source should and could be possible if money from the government for research on this was provided. The only problem with that is it would hurt oil companies. It would not hinder jobs. AA power station would clos and a new company that produces a different form of energy would open. It would just hurt America’s richest oil companies.

It’s not a question of giving up everyday luxories, but a question of getting hold of more economic ones.

That was a long-winded way of simply saying: it’s big business and the government’s problem, not mine!

[UniGeezer]

@GeorgeWBush

The reason you feel that way, is because your right. It is a government and business problem. There is no possible way to unite america much as the world as one to reduce greenhouse emissions. I’m not saying quit trying or don’t try. Whatever a person can do to help this effort is awesome. The only problem is there aren’t enough of those people out there to make the difference we need. It would be a great country and world if there were. Instead, there are too many people that refuse to believe the effects of greenhouse gases on the world and even more people that don’t care because they’ll be dead by then. It doesn’t matter what we do, we just need to do something.

Kindof like “every vote counts”, not, "oh comon, my one vote won’t change anything. But you’re right too because unless the entire world works together (highly unlikely, unfortunately) the problem scientists say is Global, will never be solved. And the US has made progress in at least cleaning the air. Way more stringent emission controls for cars for starters.
As one who vividly remembers eye-burning air pollution as a teenager, I can personally assert that smog is hardly the menace it was a generation ago, in Los Angeles and other locales with a reputation for dirty air. This does not mean that we can rest on our laurels. Far from it.
It does mean that real progress is being made, and that the time for extremist rhetoric and scare tactics—if there ever was one— has long since passed.

[threeinchtire]

@MuniAddict

Kindof like “every vote counts”, not, "oh comon, my one vote won’t change anything. But you’re right too because unless the entire world works together (highly unlikely, unfortunately) the problem scientists say is Global, will never be solved. And the US has made progress in at least cleaning the air. Way more stringent emission controls for cars for starters.
As one who vividly remembers eye-burning air pollution as a teenager, I can personally assert that smog is hardly the menace it was a generation ago, in Los Angeles and other locales with a reputation for dirty air. This does not mean that we can rest on our laurels. Far from it.
It does mean that real progress is being made, and that the time for extremist rhetoric and scare tactics—if there ever was one— has long since passed.

Well, there’s the UN. That’s sort of like the world working together…
It IS a global problem, and we need to work together, or everyone will pay the consequences. But you’re right, it’s very difficult to get everyone on the same page, which is why the US (at the forefront of polluting) needs to get its act together.
And I don’t get where you’re going with that last bit. There are tons of places that still have unbearable air pollution ( didn’t SLC just have a problem recently? ) and this is far from over. As for the scare tactics, nobody wants to use them, but the time HAS come. Scientists are being cautious with this new IPCC report, and we will probably experience more severe changes than they have pedicted thus far.
You know why they are getting aggressive? Cause nobody’s effin listening!

It’s time to shape up.

[bugman]

@steveyo

Bugman, I forwent analysis on what GW said, because there was no opinion involved, as he just stated facts.

Do you disagree that the US has 4% of the world’s population, or that it burns 24% of the fossil fuel? Do you disagree that the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1994, or the paleo-ice records that empirically show that at least one greenhouse gas - CO2 - is at the highest concentration in 500K yrs?

These are merely facts, published, peer-reviewed, and agreed upon by all the scientists in the world. Save the few cherry-picked deniers sought out by the companies that stand to lose near-term profits due to global warming. I choose to believe the vast, vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations rather than a few oil-industry funded nay-sayers.

As danger_uni (a scientist) said in another, similar thread “there is better concensus about this among scientists than any other comparitively complex topic in history”. If 2500 scientists from 130 different countries had a conference and agreed to say that there is at least a 90% chance that the dominant cause of global warming in the last 50 years has been caused by humans, why wouldn’t you believe them? You call that voodoo science?

Do you think that all 2500 of the scientists from 130 different countries are being paid off for their opinions by profit-motivated environmentalists? Do you really think they stand to gain something if they’re believed?

Edit: BTW, I think GeorgeWBush is BTM.

Your obviously worried about this, what have you done to stop contributing to the problem? Posting in this thread doesn’t count.

I am not in a position to dispute the figures you have presented as fact at this time. I will dispute the 90% statistic though. That is purely voodoo. It has been said that 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Does that make it a fact? WHat did they do poll the 2,500 scientists and come up with that number. Global warming is the boogie man, and the scientists making their living off this issue see it behind every door.

I too am a scientist. My degree is a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry, as is my wifes. I have seen science run amock more than once, so to tell me that 2,500 scientist all agree has little value. If everyone believes it it must be true, is not a postition of fact, but the bandwagon. I would say that it takes absolutely no scientific scrutiny to go along with the “crowd” What exactly would any of those 2,500 scientists that disagreed get from taking that position? It is a lot better to stick with the crowd than to loose your job, grant, peer approval. Thay have a lot more to loose than gain by going against the snowball that is currently rolling downhill.

I am not saying that there has been no change in the climate. There has always been change in the climate. It has not been the same ever. So to think that we could cause it or prevent it from changing is pretty egocentric.
One women named Rachel Carson has been responsible for more deaths than than any other person on the planet. She started the ball rolling that caused the banning of DDT. Today the WHO is using it again in Africa to protect humans from mosquitos that carry malaria. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/note2000-15.html

I watched research from the inside of the CDC. People with conclusions working toward proving they were right. Others building on the same faulty science to proove their faulty hypothysis. Soon they are banning things based on the possibility(90% sure) that this does that. When the real science is never really happening. Confusing correlation and causation is one of the many faults I find with all of the Global Warming arguments.

Sorry i’m tired. more another day. Maybe I will jump on the bandwagon with all the other scientists that are always right.

[UniGeezer]

@threeinchtire

Well, there’s the UN. That’s sort of like the world working together…
It IS a global problem, and we need to work together, or everyone will pay the consequences. But you’re right, it’s very difficult to get everyone on the same page, which is why the US (at the forefront of polluting) needs to get its act together.
And I don’t get where you’re going with that last bit. There are tons of places that still have unbearable air pollution ( didn’t SLC just have a problem recently? ) and this is far from over. As for the scare tactics, nobody wants to use them, but the time HAS come. Scientists are being cautious with this new IPCC report, and we will probably experience more severe changes than they have pedicted thus far.
You know why they are getting aggressive? Cause nobody’s effin listening!

It’s time to shape up.

With all due respect, they were saying the EXACT same thing 30 years ago, but then it was Global cooling! And I will ask you, Threeinchtire, what will you personally do to stop global warming? Everyone’s saying that “we have to do something!”…ok, what? Tell me please so I can start helping too!

[UniGeezer]

@GeorgeWBush

Don’t ask people what they themselves will do. We live in a democracy. We elect government officials to do their jobs and solve problems like this. We pay through taxes the people that should be using their knowledge to solve these problems.

Really? Remember JFK? “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!”

Hey here’s an idea! Space Ring Could Shade Earth and Stop Global Warming | Live Science

[UniGeezer]

@GeorgeWBush

Don’t attack the people that give this information.
Just take it in, and be aware of it.

There is a clear difference between “attacking” and responding with a viewpoint of my own, which is all I’ve done.

@GeorgeWBush

The first step to stopping this problem is knowledge of it. Then we can work together to stop it. Don’t give lectures on how we aren’t doing anything to stop it. Stopping acting immature. Believe it or not, there are people that don’t know how serious a threat global warming is. If people spread the word, some people might start doing something about it. Who cares who doesn’t and who does work to fight it. Convincing people of the threat is more help to the cause than downplaying it and finding any way to argue it possible.

grow the fuck up.

I’m not surprised at your immature outburst and profanity aimed directly at me, when I never attacked you with such epithets. That just illustrates the fact that you’re frustrated and have to stoop to name calling. I simply asked what you/me and the average good citizen can do to address Global warming. And if anybody has been “lecturing”, it’s you. I just chimed in with an opinion like everybidy else. And btw, Bush is not “my R. president”; I happen to think he’s terrible on the boarder issue, for example, and is far from the best either party has to offer. I’m not a “kool-aid” drinker and I don’t vote based only on party affiliation.

[steveyo]

@MuniAddict

Howabout moving on to the question: What are you(meaning everybody in general that believes in GWarming) personally prepared to do to solve the “global warming” problem? Are you willing to give up your car…?!

Here’s what my household does…I admit, we could do more.

First, we only drive small cars, no SUVs or minivans in our driveway. I, like you, need my car to run my business, (it’s a 97 Honda Civic - 35mpg) but I almost never start it otherwise. I do all the errands I can using pedal power, including grocery shopping with my bike trailer. It makes feel good when I pedal past someone loading their groceries into their Suburban, but makes my effort seems futile, at the same time.

We keep our house set cool in the winter, and have no AC for the summer. We buy mostly local food that hasn’t had fuel expended to get it to us, including all our produce from a local organic farm. Oh, and we don’t eat beef.

I write letters to the editor extolling virtues of fuel conservation and touting those candidates whom I believe will address these pressing problems. I work on the campaigns of these candidates, as well.

@muniaddict

And like Bugman accurately pointed out, <<Nanci Pelosi, who is currently trying to get access to a jet that will burn more fuel and create more CO2 emissions in one trip, than my SUV will create in my lifetime.>> I wonder if she’s going to walk the walk and reconsider!

I didn’t know about this, but I’d love to see a link to this info, so I can read about it, then I’ll comment on it.

[Gilby]

@GeorgeWBush

Don’t ask people what they themselves will do.

We the people…

It takes the people to demand certain products, so it takes the people to get the free market to move in the direction of what the people want.

@GeorgeWBush

We live in a democracy.

Mr. Bush, quit misleading the people. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

@GeorgeWBush

We elect government officials to do their jobs and solve problems like this.

We elect government officials to do their jobs, which is to follow the constitution, which has many limits on what the government officials can do. You, like most other polititians, don’t know the constitution. It’s your job to know it and follow it. If you can’t do your job, then why would we want you to take care of global warming, health care, education, or anything else. Yes, I know, you’ve said the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. Get over yourself and face reality. The constitution is about “we the people” and not about being a tyrant.

@GeorgeWBush

We pay through taxes the people that should be using their knowledge to solve these problems.

The free market can solve the problem better than polititians. Let us keep our money and spend it on the new technologies.

[UniGeezer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by muniaddict
And like Bugman accurately pointed out, <<Nanci Pelosi, who is currently trying to get access to a jet that will burn more fuel and create more CO2 emissions in one trip, than my SUV will create in my lifetime.>> I wonder if she’s going to walk the walk and reconsider!

@steveyo

I didn’t know about this, but I’d love to see a link to this info, so I can read about it, then I’ll comment on it.

Happy to oblige: http://jetjit.com/pelosi.htm?gclid=CLvkgYTXoYoCFRRnYAodKHw_sw

Pelosi’s push for jet remains up in air

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/6/95058.shtml?s=ic

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/07/eveningnews/main2445668.shtml