Global Warming

[BasketCase]

Crossed wires cause fires.

The quote you just quoted from me goes with global warming, not evolution. I posted an example of a study that concluded that temperature changes drive CO2 levels, instead of the other way around.

"They do clam up" goes with evolution, and I've never seen an anti-evolutionist clam up when asked for proof--but then I've only met a few out-of-the-closet anti-evolutionists.

There, that should clear everything up.

 

[carlosMM]

"They do clam up" goes with evolution, and I've never seen an anti-evolutionist clam up when asked for proof--but then I've only met a few out-of-the-closet anti-evolutionists.

again, crossed wires: I said they clam up when one asks for follow-ups to the 'many scientists say....'

which is a perfect parallel for your claim.

 

[BasketCase]

Anti-Global Warming #1
Anti-Global Warming #2
Anti-Global Warming #3
No Consensus on Global Warming
No Consensus #2
Another Dissenter
Anti-Global Warming #4
Crushing Dissenters

I have no illusions that this hefty pile of links will actually have any effect--in a nation of 300 million people, I'm probably expected to come up with a minimum of 2,378,146 links.

 

[Dragonlord]

To enlarge on my earlier post:

It seems to me that the core question is whether we (humanity) need to reduce emissions to counter global warming, and how fast we need to do it.

Those who feel there is no need to do anything mostly focus on details like how much, exactly, man-made emissions contribute to the problem and point out, quite rightly, that exact figures and effects are impossible pinpoint.

Their conclusion, however, seems to be: "Oh, you don't have exact figures? Well, come back when you do, and until then I'll do nothing..."

IMO, what is proven and accepted by all but a few diehard ostriches (stick-head-in-the-sand principle) is:
-The earth is getting warmer
- This is changing climatological patterns and WILL change them further
- Such changes will adversely affect human beings
- Man-made emissions contribute go global warming

The nit-picking discussions on how much exactly... yadda,yadda... are IMO beside the point: if in doubt, act to minimise negative effects, don't wait until it is too late!
The range of predictions ranges from 'everything is OK' on one extreme to 'its already too late, we're doomed!' on the other.
IMO, the prudent course would be to assume the highest probability is somewhere in the middle and act accordingly: reduce emissions as far and as fast as possible.

 

[carlosMM]

Anti-Global Warming #1

Who is 'we'? People paid for by Halliburton?

baaad link!

Anti-Global Warming #2

have you actually read this?

Very few scientists—even the scientists the authors imply are helping the media misinform the public—dispute the idea that anthropogenic contributions are warming the atmosphere to some degree.

oops!

Anti-Global Warming #3

look for the 'About us' link - that's all you get about who they are!

About Us
CO2 is required for life on earth. It cannot be reasonably construed to be a pollutant. With proper stewardship, the ability of earth’s plant life to sequester carbon in soils can result in a host of benefits. CO2 and Climate.org provides sound information about CO2 and climate to educators, students, business and media representatives, community leaders and policymakers alike.

Greening Earth Society sponsors CO2 and Climate.org as an online source of information concerning the impact of the atmosphere’s increasing concentration of carbon dioxide (C02) on earth’s climate and the biosphere.

Our climate focus expresses scientific skepticism concerning the potential for catastrophic changes in climate due to humanity’s emissions of CO2.

Our CO2 focus concerns the science of carbon sequestration by terrestrial plant life and the benefits to plant life from carbon dioxide fertilization.

Greening Earth Society is a not-for-profit membership organization comprised of rural electric cooperatives and municipal electric utilities, their fuel suppliers, and thousands of individuals.

lobby group!

No Consensus on Global Warming

go to their hompage - they call themselves a 'Conservative Thinktank' - lobby group anyone?

No Consensus #2

BasketCase, I expect better of you! This is a journalism pice, giving an opinion without ANY proof whatsoever!
Another Dissenter The first ehre,a ctually, who is a scientist - a NUCLEAR scientist! §What is his training and expertise in climate research??????

Anti-Global Warming #4

An op-ed piece of journalism again, with referrence to a non-climatologist again! tsk tsk!

Crushing Dissenters

calls itself an op-ed piece, the CEI calls itsefl:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government.

OOPS!

I have no illusions that this hefty pile of links will actually have any effect--in a nation of 300 million people, I'm probably expected to come up with a minimum of 2,378,146 links.

You have illusion about what constitutes a proper source!

 

[BasketCase]

Yes, I read all of those links. And none of them have to be proper sources; they simply quote what various dissenting (i.e. anti-global-warmig) studies and scientists SAY about the issue.

Consensus means everybody (or almost everybody) agrees. Obviously people are not agreeing. What onedreamer said. My opinion isn't unique or special here. There's a bunch of people who are not sure global warming is a clear and present danger.

 

[onedreamer]

Hm, ask someone who's part of the scientific community and he will tell you that

most sicentists KNOW that global warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas rises.

The oil industries try claim what you do, but the bible thumpers also claim that a significant portion of scientists say evolution doesn't happen. Ask them for proof and they clam up.

So, get us a list showing proof that 'the majority of scientists DO NOT agree with the cause of global warming being pollution from human beings'.

I don't claim anything... the change of the inclination of the Earth's axis is a fact not a claim. While statistics on human pollution are indeed a claim IMO. I learnt to not trust any statistic that unknown people shove to us.........

 

[Shaihulud]

The fact is global temperatures are rising, this differs from the usual pattern in Earth's history. I know this because reputable scientists have analyzed core samples from old ice in Antartica. The fact is that human also contibutes a massive amount of CO2 into the Enviroment, reducing the no. of trees that traps carbon and converts them into oxygen. From this I can deduce that humans have drastically changed the normal course of events. Some people says that human effects are not sufficient to change the enviroment, I say thats bull why does the pattern starts becoming erratic just in this short period of time when we are on Earth? By how much have we actually shifted the changes from normal anyway.

 

[carlosMM]

Yes, I read all of those links. And none of them have to be proper sources; they simply quote what various dissenting (i.e. anti-global-warmig) studies and scientists SAY about the issue.

untrue, most say what political lobbyists say. Slight diff between an independent scientists and a paid loyybist!

Consensus means everybody (or almost everybody) agrees. Obviously people are not agreeing. What onedreamer said. My opinion isn't unique or special here. There's a bunch of people who are not sure global warming is a clear and present danger.

Uh, because people in Bum****, Idaho, disgree with evolution you say there is no consensus in the scientific world about evolution?

 

[carlosMM]

I don't claim anything... the change of the inclination of the Earth's axis is a fact not a claim. While statistics on human pollution are indeed a claim IMO. I learnt to not trust any statistic that unknown people shove to us.........

false - the amount of coal, oil and gas burnt is a fact that can easily be checked Same goes for deforestation! again!

 

[storealex]

Im too tired of these discussions... What we have here are some amateurs discarding what almost all recognised scientists agree on. That: Humans contribute to global warming

We know that these gasses keep the Earth warm.
We know that we emmision lot's of these gasses.
We know that it's getting warmer.

All of the above has been proved. Put two and two together...

And even if these amateurs should be right. What are the odds? Is it a gamble you would take, even if the stakes were high? Or would it be better to play it safe, and do the sensible thing?

Now Basketcase, I don't find these discussions funny, but one thing does make me smile a little.
That thing is that you are extremely critical towards the theori of global warming, while you are the exactly opposite towards the theori that Iraq had WMD's prior to the invasion.

Talk about cognitive dissonance...

 

[Dragonlord]

And even if these amateurs should be right. What are the odds? Is it a gamble you would take, even if the stakes were high? Or would it be better to play it safe, and do the sensible thing?

That was the exact point I was trying to make as well!

When you are talking about the serious probability of potentially catastrophic effects on humanity, it's idiotic to wait till 'uncontrovertible proof' is obtained before you try to minimise those effects - especially since some people don't WANT to be convinced, no matter what proof is offered!

What do you people need to start thinking conservation - God personally giving you tablets of stone saying: "Thou shalt not pollute the earth?" Jeez!

 

[onedreamer]

false - the amount of coal, oil and gas burnt is a fact that can easily be checked Same goes for deforestation! again!

really ? So what ? These measures still don't prove anything with certainty. What is certain instead is that in the past history of Earth there have already been such climatic changes and men had nothing to do about it. But the egocentric vision that it must be human beings to cause something of this magnitude, plus the fact that this hypothesis surely rings stronger bells than the fact that it's just a natural event, certainly have brought crowd of sheeps to believe it's all fault of human beings. After all it's reknown that men and sheeps are very similar in behaviour when taken in crowds.
Anyways I never stated that we're not contributing to global warming with pollution, and I believe none else did. Only an idiot would... now if you think I'm an idiot I don't know why would you even answer my posts... what some people is trying to explain you here is this: are you so sure that global warming depends only or in great part from pollution ? Are you sure that we can actually do something about it and that it's not, in reality, just a natural process that we can't stop at all ?
The answer I gave to these 2 questions is no.

 

[onedreamer]

We know that it's getting warmer.

Glad that you know that. I know that the story is quite different. I know that on the 31st of December Dubai has seen snow for the first time, for what any Arab can remember. I know that the inclination of the axis is changing quite fast and it is the cause of many climatic changes, the most evident to us are stronger and longer "main" seasons (warmer Summer and colder Winter), and shorter Spring & Autumn. Though, I know for a fact that the said "There are no more "half" seasons" dates quite before we started to pollute all around, and I know that some scientists have some opinions and others don't agree. When this happens it's because nothing is proven. You can have your opinion on the matter without calling amateurs or worse the people who doesn't agree with you.

 

[carlosMM]

really ? So what ?

So we know what the Co2 levels do - after all we can compute how much bunkered C is now freed!

These measures still don't prove anything with certainty.

They show with certainty that the rise in Co2 is directly linked to the fossil fuels we burn - or you'd have to find an elaborate mechanism that takes Co2 from the air if it is man-made and at the same time replaces it with exactly the same amount of 'natural' Co2!

What is certain instead is that in the past history of Earth there have already been such climatic changes and men had nothing to do about it.

Yup, there have been changes. Neither of the big ones look like a pleasant experience.

But the egocentric vision that it must be human beings to cause something of this magnitude,

nobody claims that is MUST be man - we find that NOTHING ELSE is doing anything atm though!

plus the fact that this hypothesis surely rings stronger bells than the fact that it's just a natural event, certainly have brought crowd of sheeps to believe it's all fault of human beings.

eh, logic is not the strong suit of this post: the heretic claim is that MAN DOES IT, used to be that prhtodoxy said is doesn't matter if we burn fossil fules.

After all it's reknown that men and sheeps are very similar in behaviour when taken in crowds.

Yes, what a stunning proof that man doesn't create global warming!

Anyways I never stated that we're not contributing to global warming with pollution, and I believe none else did.

the words 'entirely natural' or 'mostly natural' were repeatedly used!

what some people is trying to explain you here is this: are you so sure that global warming depends only or in great part from pollution ?

I am - the correlation between CO2 ris, methane rise, industrial fuel use, deforestation, increased erosion (antoehr CO2 source!) is striking, and no known natural facftors WORKING ATM can significantly contribute!

Are you sure that we can actually do something about it

No, I am not, it may be too late!

and that it's not, in reality, just a natural process that we can't stop at all ?

Yes, it is NOT a natural process! There is NO natural source of CO2 or a naturally diminished sink for CO2 to explain the rising levels! Not a single one!

 

[carlosMM]

Glad that you know that. I know that the story is quite different. I know that on the 31st of December Dubai has seen snow for the first time, for what any Arab can remember.

so what? local factors may run opposed to regional ones, exceptions always happen. BTw, i remember my granny telling me of 'the first snow people can remember' in teh Sahara - in 1943!

A general trend cannot be denied here - check world climate ON AVERAGE for the apst 100 years and despair!

I know that the inclination of the axis is changing quite fast and it is the cause of many climatic changes, the most evident to us are stronger and longer "main" seasons (warmer Summer and colder Winter), and shorter Spring & Autumn.

So? You cna make firm predictions from the Milakovic cycles, but atm the general trend is running THE OTHER WAY - how to explain that?

Though, I know for a fact that the said "There are no more "half" seasons" dates quite before we started to pollute all around, and I know that some scientists have some opinions and others don't agree. When this happens it's because nothing is proven. You can have your opinion on the matter without calling amateurs or worse the people who doesn't agree with you.

erhm, almost all independent scientists agree that man-made pollution and change of the composition of the athmosphere is the main factor for the current warming trend that should not be!

See how hard a time BC had finding even a SINGLE respectable scientist who disagrees!

 

[BasketCase]

That thing is that you are extremely critical towards the theori of global warming, while you are the exactly opposite towards the theori that Iraq had WMD's prior to the invasion.

Talk about cognitive dissonance...

Completely wrong.

My opinion on Saddam's WMD is that we don't know whether he had them at the time we invaded.

My opinion on global warming is that the evidence we have doesn't prove convincingly that global warming is a threat.

My opinions on WMD and GW are basically identical.


Edit: now Carlos, where's that link showing that temperature changes lag behind greenhouse gas levels, and not the other way around? Still waiting on that.

 

[betazed]

My opinions on WMD and GW are basically identical.

Really?

You may be saying the same thing about both the cases but supporting completely diammetrical actions. In Iraq war lack of certain information leads you to support action (the war) whatevr the merits of the data , but for global warming lack of certain information leads you to support inaction whatever the merits of the data.

If that is not cognitive dissonance, what is?

 

[BasketCase]

In Iraq war lack of certain information leads you to support action (the war)

Wrong. CONCLUSIVE information that Saddam was a dictator who was killing a whole lot of people led me to support action--i.e. war.

LACK of information on global warming leads me to do nothing.

Conclusive info = action. Lack of info = no action. No dissonance.

I am a do-nothing person on global warming for this reason: reducing atmospheric CO2 levels COULD DECIMATE THE PLANET'S FOOD SUPPLY!

You wanna talk universally-accepted science?? Fine. Here's some: plants eat CO2. It's their primary source of nourishment. Plants combine CO2 with water to produce sugar. Reduce the CO2 supply, and what will happen? Crops will decline. Rain forests will die off, and no Greenpeace activist anywhere wants that to happen. Plant growth in general will be stunted, which in return will reduce the supply of oxygen.

The above is cold, hard, unarguable scientific fact. Plants DEFINITELY need CO2 to survive. Reduce CO2 and you WILL starve the plants. That could produce a global famine.

Edit: PRETTY PLEASE, read the word "could" in that last sentence???

 

[Dragonlord]

Basketcase, there's just one flaw in your reasoning:

The levels of free CO2 in the atmosphere are rising, which means more CO2 is being released than the plants can absorb!

Before mankind released large quantities of CO2, the world was covered with far more forests than today; obviously there was no shortage of CO2 for their growth!

What we need to do is reduce the amount of excess CO2 in the atmosphere, which plants can't absorb any longer! If they absorbed it, we wouldn't have a problem!