Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[JPhillips]

Science and Yahoo! writing about science are two different things.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What first? Death of planet or FOF board game?

I'm not doing too badly considering my art skills are something not even the most primitive cavemen would envy. I hope to open up a kickstarter project in the next few weeks.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I certainly agree the planet is not dying. But I have seen plenty of definite, non-controversial evidence that the climate has shifted already and is showing no sign of changing that shift. The weather patterns and climate in Massachusetts now resemble those of North Carolina 25 years ago. In another 25 they will probably resemble Florida and there's no reason to think that's not going to happen based on the evidence. Sugarers in Vermont are tapping their syrup a full month earlier than their parents did. This stuff is just plain happening.

I wish the media, and scientists, and everyone discussing the issue would just focus on hard facts of things that are actually happening, and stay away from pondering about the biggest possible long-term implications.

I lived in central North Carolina 21 years ago and I lived an hour away from Boston not all that long ago. Whomever is making that claim is cherry-picking the absolute extremes. I didn't even own a winter coat when I lived in North Carolina.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i don't even necessarily believe in hard data. you could have your property surveyed and put a fence up. that night the ground settles and the next day your fence is 11 inches in your neighbor's yard.

but how? the recorded data says it isn't?

scientists are some of the most self assured people i've ever heard. michiu kaku drives me nuts. there's a big difference between probably and certainly.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I am heavily skeptical of the global warming "science" because much of the debate goes this way. I believe there is general evidence that the earth is getting warmer, but determining how fast or what is causing it or what the end effects will be seems to get all muddied-up in these editorialized articles, often presented by the heads of various research groups that seem more interested in the politics than in presenting good science.

EDIT: "often presented by the heads of various research groups that seem more interested in getting their next grant than in presenting good science."

The problem is how these researchers get their money. If they show nothing of interest or significance, they don't get funding! If I am tasked with showing the effects of global warming on the mass of the biosphere, I better show something or my funding is going to be cut.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Unfortunately, I'm not able to open the second link, I get the 404 message.

There's an extra http in there, you have to copy-paste the link and edit the start.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I lived in central North Carolina 21 years ago and I lived an hour away from Boston not all that long ago. Whomever is making that claim is cherry-picking the absolute extremes. I didn't even own a winter coat when I lived in North Carolina.

Haven't needed a winter coat in Boston the last 2 years. At all. Year before that...maybe spottily.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

EDIT: "often presented by the heads of various research groups that seem more interested in getting their next grant than in presenting good science."

The problem is how these researchers get their money. If they show nothing of interest or significance, they don't get funding! If I am tasked with showing the effects of global warming on the mass of the biosphere, I better show something or my funding is going to be cut.

And to be fair, when the researchers for oil companies or the like post their rebuttals, they do the same thing for the same reasons. When both sides are pulling this, it's hard to pull the nugget of truth out.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Haven't needed a winter coat in Boston the last 2 years. At all. Year before that...maybe spottily.

I use one in NC regularly: it gets below freezing a few times a year.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Was there much of a debate about this? Every dilemma in business ethics risks your livelihood. I'd be curious to hear a defense of the doctor not being honest.

FYI: It's been over 10 years and I don't think the second example is the same drug but it fits the academic template

The first situation, as it often was in a philosophical academic setting, was set up as a perfect "no harm" scenario. No harm will come to the patient, if say, they though drinking milk cures a flu. The doctor could suggest that it's probably not effective and provide other remedies but time would basically fix the problem. Or maybe it was something like "I always drink green tea to cure my headaches", etc. There's no real harm and an easy way out.

But if you're a doctor and someone comes in for help with their cholesterol. They believe in, say, one statin family while you think a different family of statins is more effective and has less side effects. If you recommend a different drug but they will only accept the previous one, what do you do? Do you give them a prescription for the lesser drug because it still will help their elevated cholesterol but has bad side effects or deny them because it's not the best drug and thus you've send them out to the street with elevated cholesterol.

It's one of the reasons I'm strongly opposed to medical advertising, btw. From the patient's point of view, I can go and find the academic research on a drug if I were truly interested and could inform myself enough to have an educated conversation with my doctor about a topic. I still would not substitute his judgement for mine but I would at least augment it. However, what do you do as a doctor when a patient wants a particular drug just because of a shiny advertisement?

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I certainly agree the planet is not dying. But I have seen plenty of definite, non-controversial evidence that the climate has shifted already and is showing no sign of changing that shift. The weather patterns and climate in Massachusetts now resemble those of North Carolina 25 years ago. In another 25 they will probably resemble Florida and there's no reason to think that's not going to happen based on the evidence. Sugarers in Vermont are tapping their syrup a full month earlier than their parents did. This stuff is just plain happening.

I wish the media, and scientists, and everyone discussing the issue would just focus on hard facts of things that are actually happening, and stay away from pondering about the biggest possible long-term implications.

If we have another hot summer in the Midwest, we'll resemble the 1930s.

[molson]

I haven't done any serious research or anything on global warning or any of the studies, so this is from an uneducated perspective, but it just seems there's a special level of cynicism here that you don't see with other types of research. "There's money involved, so don't believe anything." Can't we say that about anything? The fact that researchers have motives to find something certainly warrants some healthy skepticism, but it doesn't lend support to the opposite theory.

It seems global warming, above all other highly news/science/research "stories" gets the most skepticism, and I'm not sure whether that's because the science is actually so debatable, or just because this is a political issue that people have strong emotional reactions to, and that businesses have real financial interest in.

Just assuming for a minute that global warming is caused by humans and it's going to cause serious and planet-altering problems in the not-to-distance future - what would it take for that fact to become widely accepted? Obviously no research could do it, because "research is motivated by profit", so that's out. It would have to be real climate disaster I guess, and even then causes of the disaster will be debated by those with political interest.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I use one in NC regularly: it gets below freezing a few times a year.

Remember, cold to Bostonians and North Carolinians are two different things

My wife joked about Houstonians after moving here last year and how they'd get out a coat and scarf for 50 degree days in the "winter" when that was positively balmy in her native Iowa and they called that autumn weather.

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by molson

It seems global warming, above all other highly news/science/research "stories" gets the most skepticism, and I'm not sure whether that's because the science is actually so debatable, or just because this is a political issue that people have strong emotional reactions to, and that businesses have real financial interest in.

It's all Al Gore's fault: it became such a huge political issue, and has such huge sums of money tied up in it, and everytime one of them tries to discuss, so much garbage comes out you wonder what's up. The media hits it up bigtime, yet so many of their stories contain factual errors, you can't help but question most of what you hear about it.

Originally Posted by molson

Just assuming for a minute that global warming is caused by humans and it's going to cause serious and planet-altering problems in the not-to-distance future - what would it take for that fact to become widely accepted? Obviously no research could do it, because "research is motivated by profit", so that's out. It would have to be real climate disaster I guess, and even then causes of the disaster will be debated by those with political interest.

Focus on reliable information and stop publicizing blatant slanted pieces like the one that started this conversation. I'll listen far more when I regularly hear reliable pieces based on sound data, and less clearly-politicized propaganda pieces.

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Focus on reliable information and stop publicizing blatant slanted pieces like the one that started this conversation. I'll listen far more when I regularly hear reliable pieces based on sound data, and less clearly-politicized propaganda pieces.

There will always be blatant slanted pieces though, regardless of the truth. Knowing that, what would it take to accept any truth? Edit: I can see feeling negative towards those people/researchers/media and not finding them credible after that, but knowing truth isn't like a favor to them, it's still a neutral concept. "If you're going to be all politically bias than I'm not going to believe YOUR global warming theories" doesn't make a lot of sense.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's all Al Gore's fault:

to a large degree. it was, "holy shit! have you seen an inconvenient truth?!"

""yeah, but wasn't he the one that said all those trade agreements would be good for the average american?"

"oh, right."

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

...

I am heavily skeptical of the global warming "science" because much of the debate goes this way. I believe there is general evidence that the earth is getting warmer, but determining how fast or what is causing it or what the end effects will be seems to get all muddied-up in these editorialized articles, often presented by the heads of various research groups that seem more interested in the politics than in presenting good science.

+1

This is where I am. Al Gore declaring that the scientific debate was 'over', and essentially relegating me to the status of a 'flat earther' hasn't changed my opinion, only what others say about me.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But if you're a doctor and someone comes in for help with their cholesterol. They believe in, say, one statin family while you think a different family of statins is more effective and has less side effects. If you recommend a different drug but they will only accept the previous one, what do you do? Do you give them a prescription for the lesser drug because it still will help their elevated cholesterol but has bad side effects or deny them because it's not the best drug and thus you've send them out to the street with elevated cholesterol.

It's one of the reasons I'm strongly opposed to medical advertising, btw. From the patient's point of view, I can go and find the academic research on a drug if I were truly interested and could inform myself enough to have an educated conversation with my doctor about a topic. I still would not substitute his judgement for mine but I would at least augment it. However, what do you do as a doctor when a patient wants a particular drug just because of a shiny advertisement?

SI

That is a little less simple. I don't think a doctor needs to hold out for the "best" drug since medicine isn't an exact science, but they do need to make sure they don't prescribe something dangerous just because it is asked for. Ultimately, the patient is in charge of their own treatment. That is why informed consent is such a big deal.

I don't like medical advertising either, but it seems necessary to counter the kick-backs to doctors from drug companies. In a perfect world, you wouldn't have either situation, but second best is to have both.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

+1

This is where I am. Al Gore declaring that the scientific debate was 'over', and essentially relegating me to the status of a 'flat earther' hasn't changed my opinion, only what others say about me.

At the time he made it, his statement was an accurate one. But once the talk moved to carbon credits and things like that, making it a financial instead of scientific discussion, all of a sudden this wave of funding came in to try and discredit the scientific consensus. Then you just add the political fuel to the fire, and it completely changed the scenario.

[Solecismic]

The Massachusetts/North Carolina/Florida quote bothers me. It's not based on anything other than an extraordinary manipulation of extremes. And people hear it and repeat it.

It doesn't help the Inconvenient Truth crowd, because the predictions don't come true. We're not getting more hurricanes than ever before. It's a hot year, but the "hockey stick" that Gore loved so much isn't manifesting.

I charted some basic weather numbers to illustrate.

I used Boston's Logan Airport and the Raleigh-Durham airport. I also used the West Palm Beach airport. Like Boston's, it's near the Atlantic. It's about as far south of Raleigh as Raleigh is from Boston. As far as silly-season politics goes, it's a fair choice.

Data is from the Weather Warehouse. They claim their data comes, unaltered, from the NOAA. I took the Mean Temperature for each month of each year going back as far as they had data. I divided years by 12. It's obviously not a perfect measure, but it has a lot of data points and I'd be surprised if it wasn't a fair measure of the mean temperature for the year.

The chart speaks for itself.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BrianD

That is a little less simple. I don't think a doctor needs to hold out for the "best" drug since medicine isn't an exact science, but they do need to make sure they don't prescribe something dangerous just because it is asked for. Ultimately, the patient is in charge of their own treatment. That is why informed consent is such a big deal.

Well, that's the thing, tho- is the patient really in charge of their own treatment? Should they be? Isn't that what he's paying the guy with the lab coat and stethoscope to do? Then again, it's not as if doctors aren't people and fallible, even if they have good intentions and not all do.

I don't like medical advertising either, but it seems necessary to counter the kick-backs to doctors from drug companies. In a perfect world, you wouldn't have either situation, but second best is to have both.

Oh hell no. Propaganda dueling propaganda? How does adding two bathtubs to combat golf vacati-- er... Cialis conference even make the least bit of sense. Make them both illegal or highly regulated. Your experts (doctors) have to decide on merit and the patients can view the peer reviewed data on the drugs. If we want to make it even more transparent and set up an FDA site with more approachable information, it's a good use of my tax dollars.

Cialis Fast Facts
Drug name: drug name
Test run: 6 months in 2004
Test company: Eli Lilly
Number of Patients: 456
How the drug works: Insert text that looks like wikipedia page for chemical description of boner pills
What it cures: ED
Side effects: Initial trial saw 18 patients saw hair growth on palms, 3 got hot dog fingers, and 1 became inflicted with stigmata.
Advisories: In 2008, that 4 hour erection side effect became publicized so we're legally obligated to put it here.

SI

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, that's the thing, tho- is the patient really in charge of their own treatment? Should they be? Isn't that what he's paying the guy with the lab coat and stethoscope to do? Then again, it's not as if doctors aren't people and fallible, even if they have good intentions and not all do.

Patients are in charge of their own treatment, and they should be. Doctors are highly-paid and highly-trained consultants. A smart patient will give their advice the weight it deserves, but the patient should definitely be involved and get the final word.

Oh hell no. Propaganda dueling propaganda? How does adding two bathtubs to combat golf vacati-- er... Cialis conference even make the least bit of sense. Make them both illegal or highly regulated. Your experts (doctors) have to decide on merit and the patients can view the peer reviewed data on the drugs. If we want to make it even more transparent and set up an FDA site with more approachable information, it's a good use of my tax dollars.

Cialis Fast Facts
Drug name: drug name
Test run: 6 months in 2004
Test company: Eli Lilly
Number of Patients: 456
How the drug works: Insert text that looks like wikipedia page for chemical description of boner pills
What it cures: ED
Side effects: Initial trial saw 18 patients saw hair growth on palms, 3 got hot dog fingers, and 1 became inflicted with stigmata.
Advisories: In 2008, that 4 hour erection side effect became publicized so we're legally obligated to put it here.

SI

Like I said, perfect world kills advertising to both groups. Second best is advertising to both groups. If you'd prefer, I can re-phrase it. Having only one group being advertised to (or given kickbacks) is the worst option. Second worst option is allowing both to get the advertisements. Taking out the business and leaving it as pure science is the best option, but I don't see how you can enforce that with for-profit hospitals.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

irrefutable evidence

who's payroll are you on? big oil? big airport? big foot? big world little planet? I WANT ANSWERS

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

who's payroll are you on? big oil? big airport? big foot? big world little planet? I WANT ANSWERS

AND IS THAT BIGFOOT THE MONSTER TRUCK OR BIGFOOT THE SASQUATCH?!? YOUR STORY DOESN'T CHECK OUT, MISTER!

SI

[Blackadar]

Or maybe it's all another NASA conspiracy like landing on the moon.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

.6 to .8 of a degree? am i reading that right?

[sterlingice]

Yeah, about 1 degree over 100 years (roughly). But that's on the average across the board- not so inconsequential

SI

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

anomaly means deviation from the norm, right?

[cartman]

Chemistry taught me that something happens to water somewhere between 31.7 degrees and 32.3 degrees Fahrenheit. So .6 of a degree can have consequences.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

so the hottest days and coolest days were .6 higher?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

not trying to be dismissive just trying to wrap my head around it. the chart looks scary as fuck until you see the scale.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

so the hottest days and coolest days were .6 higher?

No, about 1 degrees higher. The opening years are -.3 or so.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There's an extra http in there, you have to copy-paste the link and edit the start.

Ahhhh sneaky!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

AND IS THAT BIGFOOT THE MONSTER TRUCK OR BIGFOOT THE SASQUATCH?!? YOUR STORY DOESN'T CHECK OUT, MISTER!

SI

Sasquatch was killed today in an accident. Keep up with the news.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

anomaly means deviation from the norm, right?

It's a word that means deviation from the normal. But what we don't know is what's normal. The labels and the scope of the y-axis are chosen for political reasons. That's why I chose 0 for the bottom of my y-axis - so everyone looking at the chart had some frame of reference for the slope of the lines.

It seems it's about 1 degree F higher today in eastern America than it was 60 years ago. I don't know if that's cause for alarm. I don't trust the government to tell me that it is.

Like others have mentioned, what does constitute proof? Stats say 95+% of scientists think it is getting warmer. I don't know if that's controversial.

Stats say about 85% of scientists think man has something to do with that. But, as others have noted, you don't get funding for climate research without a hypothesis that something's seriously wrong. It has been a political issue for a long time now. You can't read the emails describing how East Anglia controlled the peer review process and not be concerned about the ethics of many of these scientists. The media trumpets that core samples show the ice has never been thinner. But they don't trumpet that these records don't go back very far - and it is warmer than at any time when they could measure these things.

What if man is inadvertently delaying another ice age by thousands of years? And who is going to tell China to cut back on energy just when its economy is a major power in the world? What about India?

I think we should work toward renewable energy. I'd say it's one of the more serious issues in the world, even. But spending trillions on emissions control? I don't think the case has been made. Not even close.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

so the hottest days and coolest days were .6 higher?

Also, those measures are in C so it's more like 1-3 degrees F depending on whether you're using 0.6 or 1.2 (absolute min and max or average or starting points or whatever...)

If the change were evenly distributed like an average, sure. However, a month where there was just a week with temps about 5 F degrees hotter would satisfy an 0.6 C degree shift. Or a year where one month averaged 10 F degrees hotter would only have a 0.4 C effect.

I'm not saying this was caused by global warming but merely to illustrate the effect of a few degree shift. Houston's hot and humid: it's a swamp and everyone knows it and makes jokes about it. But it rarely gets above 100- maybe a couple of weeks during the summer but that's not a lot for a place known as having summer for 7 or 8 months of the year. I'd hazard that Kansas averages as many if not more 100 degree days per year than Houston- tho I could be totally off base (EDIT: nope, I was right: Wichita gets 10.5 per year: Storm Team 12 Meteorologist Rodney Price: How many 100 degree days? while Houston averages 4: http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2011/08...a-single-year/)

On the days when it's between 90 and 95, there are frequently scattered thunderstorms in the afternoon- they blow up for a few minutes and move on through parts of the city for a couple of hours. However, when it gets above 96 or 97, it's too hot for that moisture to form into those storms. Last summer, there was a record setting stretch of 23 days in a row above 100 (shattering the old mark of 16 in temperature recorded history so we're talking over 100 years). And, not coincidentally, it turned our swamp into more of a desert with all the typical swamp plants dying and the city going brown. There were huge repercussions from farming loss to massive pothole problems from the damp clay soil drying out. And, frankly, a lot of that had to do with it just being a few degrees too hot.

So it's not as if going from 30-34 is the only sensitive range, going from something as innocuous as 94 to 98 or 102 put us in a big bind last year.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think we should work toward renewable energy. I'd say it's one of the more serious issues in the world, even. But spending trillions on emissions control? I don't think the case has been made. Not even close.

But by your standard of proof, the case can NEVER be made. Because there's always politics, and distrust of government, and motives for research. Which makes me as skeptical of the general cynicism as you are of the research. You have your own bias, like everyone does, about anything.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cartman

Chemistry taught me that something happens to water somewhere between 31.7 degrees and 32.3 degrees Fahrenheit. So .6 of a degree can have consequences.

But we are no where near that point. A lot of the measures that we use there is a few areas where a small change is important. But when you are no where close to that point, it is irrelevant.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But we are no where near that point. A lot of the measures that we use there is a few areas where a small change is important. But when you are no where close to that point, it is irrelevant.

So polar ice isn't melting and glaciers aren't retreating? It is definitely happening in some areas.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

no, i get the Celsius Fahrenheit thing. it's just one of those conversations that becomes and what about this? and this? and this? and i haven't heard any satisfactory answers. things like:

long term solar cycles
planet tilt
deforestation
etc

'it's never happened ever. EVER!' really? how long have we been keeping track?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

no, i get the Celsius Fahrenheit thing. it's just one of those conversations that becomes and what about this? and this? and this? and i haven't heard any satisfactory answers. things like:

long term solar cycles
planet tilt
deforestation
etc

'it's never happened ever. EVER!' really? how long have we been keeping track?

Directly keeping track, at most 100 years for some measurements.
Indirectly via tree rings, geologic indices, and ice core samples, at least 1000 years. They can go much farther back than that with indirect methods, but the resolution gets progressively worse the farther back they go.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

But by your standard of proof, the case can NEVER be made. Because there's always politics, and distrust of government, and motives for research. Which makes me as skeptical of the general cynicism as you are of the research. You have your own bias, like everyone does, about anything.

Yeah, I know. I'm trying to look at this without bias, but I put up a bit of a wall when I saw those emails from East Anglia. They are the ones responsible for a lot of long-term climate research.

If they're right, they've hurt the world immeasurably by behaving in such an irresponsible manner as to invite skepticism as to their motives. Right now, I'm an AGW agnostic, but I don't trust the government any more than I trust the church when it comes to science.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by cartman

At the time he made it, his statement was an accurate one. But once the talk moved to carbon credits and things like that, making it a financial instead of scientific discussion, all of a sudden this wave of funding came in to try and discredit the scientific consensus. Then you just add the political fuel to the fire, and it completely changed the scenario.

It wasn't true "at the time". It was a cheap tactic to end debate and to marginalize anyone who didn't push all of their chips into the middle of the table and buy into the doomsday stories.

[molson]

I was reading just now about Louis Freeh has cashed in on his recent fame and sold out to a big law firm. Now if there were any politically controversial aspect of the Sandusky coverup , no doubt the people who were inclined not to believe the report in the first place would have a lot of ammo now - certainly, Freeh is worth a lot more with a more newsworthy report. But not many are so inclined (except the accused), so we don't have that. So while the global warming research may have similarity alternative motives generally, you probably have to be already so inclined politically to disregard that research and put those motives to the front (especially where as here, it's not like there's evidence for the contrary position - the fact that we don't have global temperatures from 5,000 years ago doesn't prove that global warming isn't man made). It doesn't mean there's no basis to the cynicism, but those political motives cut both ways.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by molson

But by your standard of proof, the case can NEVER be made. Because there's always politics, and distrust of government, and motives for research. Which makes me as skeptical of the general cynicism as you are of the research. You have your own bias, like everyone does, about anything.

this is my beef with global warming thing. it's a symptom. not the fundamental problem.

the problem is we burn shit for energy. shit is limited (and it may or may not be heating up the planet)

can we please find a new means of energy? we're exploring mars. we're looking for the god particle. our phones talk to us. yet everything runs on dinosaur bones.

manhattan project? blank check. energy crisis? some half assed carbon trading scheme. wtf is wrong with our species?

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

this is my beef with global warming thing. it's a symptom. not the fundamental problem.

the problem is we burn shit for energy. shit is limited (and it may or may not be heating up the planet)

can we please find a new means of energy? we're exploring mars. we're looking for the god particle. our phones talk to us. yet everything runs on dinosaur bones.

manhattan project? blank check. energy crisis? some half assed carbon trading scheme. wtf is wrong with our species?

If global warming isn't man-made who gives a shit what kind of energy we use (except that we should use the cheapest). National security?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

your kids. your grandkids. every human that will walk the earth after we're gone.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by molson

If global warming isn't man-made who gives a shit what kind of energy we use (except that we should use the cheapest). National security?

Ooh I know.. We might run out.? Just a guess.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

your kids. your grandkids. every human that will walk the earth after we're gone.

Do you mean economically, or that we're doing something bad to the earth?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

It wasn't true "at the time". It was a cheap tactic to end debate and to marginalize anyone who didn't push all of their chips into the middle of the table and buy into the doomsday stories.

Before "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, the ONLY international scientific academy or society to publish a dissenting opinion regarding the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.