Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[Drakonix]

Well, settling this "discussion" should be easy.

Global warming would actually mean freakish weather and an increasingly cold climate.

Show us ANY scientifically based evidence that the climate getting COLDER is a sign the climate is getting WARMER and you win the debate.

COLDER IS NOT WARMER, PERIOD.

Thank You for demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the global warming theory is 100% fallacy.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Out of context:

Enough cold fresh water flowing into the North Atlantic (a basic ramification of global warming) could cause changes in the gulf stream and other ocean currents which keep North America and Europe relatively warm and would lead to a disruption of weather patterns and, ultimately, the seasons themselves. Global warming would actually mean freakish weather and an increasingly cold climate.

The "would" follows from a "could." It is a hypothetical--but is the opinion of many scientists, the result of much research, speculation, computer simulations and models, and, given the fragility of the system and similar effects in earth's history caused by eruptions etc, it's not completely out of the question. Of course warm is not cold, but the basic transforming equation referred to is elementary and understood by the average fifth grader.

So, for the last time, while I know we are causing changes to the environment (fact), I have no evidence that global warming is either occurring or not, nor do I know what the subsequent consequences of global warming would be.

MY POINT IS THAT NEITHER DO YOU.

And yet you've just insisted, again, that it's fallacy. Seems you're willing to gamble with the future of the planet. Based on what?

Even if such 'ice age' theories are wrong and completely outrageous this does not in itself 'demonstrate' that global warming isn't occuring, nor would it indicate that all other probable results would be insignificant.

What we've established beyond a reasonable doubt that little albed's opinion about global warming isn't based on a single indicator germane to climatic research but is, as I postulated a few posts ago, based solely on his disdain of a political group he associates with the concept,

I felt this was important to make explicitly clear for my own sake because ignorant asshats much like our little albed have the potential to influence others into believing that the possibility of global warming and its consequences are nothing more than a liberal agenda, a concern only for mindless hippies and tree huggers and absurdly power mad presidential wannabees, and 'no big deal' for supposed 'rational people' who may not only arrogantly absolve themselves from concern about the issue itself, but should be ready to reject or at least deride any and all countermeasures entailing even the most subtle changes to the status quo.

This is most unfortunate as there is only one planet and we all have to live on it, even those with no respect for it.

But if such "conservative" and technological changes serve the future, regardless of whether or not the globe gets warmer or colder, we will ultimately have done the right thing to anticipate the need anyway. There are more of us every day, and the question of global warming is really just an aspect of the larger question of critical mass itself.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by Mazer

I'm hopeful our troops will no longer need to be stationed there and our mission there will become a humanitarian one.

"Become a humanitarian one?" Gee, I thought that was what was being argued all along. Hussein! Despot! Eliminate! Operation Iraqi Freedom! Rebuild! Democracy! Aren't these all supposedly humanitarian goals and how dare we sit idly by while do-dah scooby-dooby-do?

But of course I think I know what you mean, humanitarian being more like food, clothing, shelter, aid and education and not, like, shooting and car bombs. ...But isn't that the kind of humanitarian aid you were just bemoaning? Seems like a cascade of contradictions there.

Domestic politics will of course make that next to impossible after 2008.

Not sure why you think that. Whoever Bush's successor will be, in the face of around 70% disapproval with the handling of Iraq, they'll probably have run on a platform of shifting gears and will follow through to some extent in an attempt to change the perception of our involvement. Reducing our military numbers there is surely the most humanitarian option at this point, even though our presence there in any form will no doubt continue to draw fire for some time.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

But of course I think I know what you mean, humanitarian being more like food, clothing, shelter, aid and education and not, like, shooting and car bombs. ...But isn't that the kind of humanitarian aid you were just bemoaning? Seems like a cascade of contradictions there.

I would bemoan such aid if it turned Iraq into a welfare state but with their oil profit sharing plan I don't think that's likely. I used the word humanitarian when I probably should have used the word diplomatic, but you got what I meant.

Originally Posted by Drakonix

Show us ANY scientifically based evidence that the climate getting COLDER is a sign the climate is getting WARMER and you win the debate.

COLDER IS NOT WARMER, PERIOD.

Forgive Ramona for his ignorance, he isn't explaining the thermohaline circulation shutdown theory very well. A good overview of the process is available here and more details are here. What Ramona meant to say is that when large volumes of warm fresh water flow into the north Atlantic ocean the Gulf Stream flow will slow or even stop, causing regional, not global, cooling in Europe. Were this to happen northern Europe's climate would eventually be more like that of northern Canada. But most scientists agree that the likelihood of it happening is very low, even if carbon dioxide concentrations were doubled.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Pfft. Well, at least I got one of you fuckers to actually look at a website and learn a pretty new word, instead of standing there with a wrinkled nose going "NUH-UH" over and over because someone told you it was "unscientific."

Of course now you're an expert all over again. LOL.

As far as my explanation, from your own link:

One way to estimate the effect of the THC is to switch it off in coupled climate models (by adding a lot of freshwater to the northern Atlantic), and compare the surface climate before and after switching it off. Roughly, this leads to a cooling with a maximum of ~10K over the Nordic Seas (e.g., [12, 17]).

Another:

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm.

[albed]

So all that heat stays in the tropics and part of the world gets warmer while another part gets cooler and you somehow make that into "global cooling".

Have you no reasoning ability at all?

[albed]

Originally Posted by Ramoa

I have no evidence that global warming is either occurring or not, nor do I know what the subsequent consequences of global warming would be.

MY POINT IS THAT NEITHER DO YOU.

And yet you've just insisted, again, that it's fallacy. Seems you're willing to gamble with the future of the planet. Based on what?

Common sense.

I can imagine you driving down the road and slamming on your brakes every 10 yards because someone might possibly pull into your path or cross into your lane and cause a crash. Even though there's no evidence, it still a possibility and being the irrational nutcase that you are, you think your behaviour is perfectly sensible and moreover that everyone should drive like you.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Pfft. Well, at least I got one of you fuckers to actually look at a website and learn a pretty new word

You can't take credit for that. This is an issue I've studied since before multi started this thread. But this is a political forum and we're here to talk about our opinions. When I want to talk about the science behind this issue I normally go elsewhere to do it (it's a lot easier to do when people don't assume that your skepticism is politically driven). I don't come running to this place with links to every web page I read, it's not my mission to correct every factual mistake others post here, and I only did so yesterday because you were turning this valid scientific theory into sensationalist bullshit, it was embarrassing. You come to this discussion with no real understanding of the issue and then you have the gall to say that none of the rest of us understand it either? This is a side of you I've never seen before, Ramona. It's disappointing, I gotta tell ya.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Wow, I feel really bad to be the one responsible for bringing the intellectual caliber of this forum so far down. Suppose I should just let you and your egghead conservative science critic buddies get back to jokes about the weather and asserting that global warming can't exist because Al Gore's electric bill is so high and other real science. And I would like to apologize unreservedly for stooping to the sensationalist bullshit of maintaining that data pertaining to the consequences of global warming are inconclusive.

I usually go elsewhere for an intelligent discussion myself. It's not just easier to do when people don't assume that your skepticism is politically driven, it's possible.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

I would like to apologize unreservedly for stooping to the sensationalist bullshit of maintaining that data pertaining to the consequences of global warming are inconclusive.

Well, even though I never expected it, that's big of you and probably right too.

[Mazer]

I forgive you, Ramona.