Global Warming

[Inter4]

man, this is like a religion thread.

 

[Pikachu]

We're not sure we can store nuclear waste 100% safely. Play it safe. Don't switch to nuclear power, even though it could be a feasible solution to global warming.
​

(…)

...I think nuclear power is worth the risk...

I don’t understand this? Why should we implement a solution to global warming if global warming is not happening in the first place? Or are you admitting that global warming could be a problem after all?

 

[MattII]

Humans have influenced global climates over the last 2-3 centuries, but to what minimal degree. I have heard it said (in Bill Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' I think it was) that Earth's global temperature has changed by as much as 1 degree per year without human intervention. It is also a fairly well known fact in some circles that Earth's ambient temperature was much higher than nowadays, and that the atmosphere had around 10% more oxygen in it.

 

[BasketCase]

man, this is like a religion thread.

When you said that, you were more right than you could possibly know!

With the addition to the mix of the theory that global warming could shut down the Gulf Stream and trigger the next Ice Age, we're at the point where ANYTHING that happens to the planet could be blamed on global warming. Planet gets warmer, it's because of global warming. Planet gets colder, it's global warming causing an ice age (never mind that the planet is already overdue for an entirely NATURAL ice age!). The temperature spike we've seen in the last century resembles two others that have happened in the last ten thousand years, and the climate models we have can't account for it, which means there's a problem with the models--yet a lot of scientists insist "nevertheless, there is consensus that global warming is happening" (paraphrase). This, when some scientists are saying there's not enough evidence to be sure, and others are keeping their mouths shut because of the Global Warming witch hunts. Take a look at the abuse I've been subjected to for an example of the Witch Hunt in progress.....

Global Warming is basically a religion at this point.

@Pikachu: C'mon, will ya?? I've been saying global warming is possible right from the start. IF carbon dioxide is a danger, then nuclear power would eliminate that danger. IF. I apologize for refusing to convert to your religion--and no troll intended, but that's what it is.

 

[storealex]

A relgion? Oh please. You only write that to make people who are concerned about global warming look stupid. That's very low, and Im sure you can do better than that.

And I've kinda given up on you, I have better things to do than spend more hours arguing with you. As to who I should believe, well Im sorry, but I'll choose to believe not "some" scientists, but the majority and the most recognised scientists on the issue, rather than you, who are making your own little theories, that I don't give crap for, since you're could easily be overlooking something that a real scientist, who spend more than a few hours on a internet forum studying the issue, would see.

 

[Akka]

I kinda agree with BasketCase. This is like religion, with the evolution-creation debate.
Religious economic-freaks on one side, which refuse the facts and the largely recognized consensus on global warming, because it would mean some regulation on economy/industry (read : faith), and on the other sides, scientists who actually know what the stuff is about, and despair to try to explain it to people whose both ears are selectively deaf.

 

[Dragonlord]

OK, Basketcase, I get you: you're convinced that I and anyone else who wants to do something about global warming are 'tree-huggers' (to quote Tom Clancy) who want to lower your standard of living.

Guess what? I don't want a lower standard of living either. Where in any of my posts do you get the idea that I do?

The thing is, this idea that ecology and economy are necessarily opposed is total BS! I'm an economist by training and occupation myself, and there is no such dichotomy.

I do not and never have advocated closing down all power stations and 'going back to the simple life'. That's a pipe dream. BUT we should allocate resources to solutions that make economic sense:

- modernize old energy-inefficient power stations
- build up alternate renewable energy sources
- reduce inefficencies in power usage

and so on.

All of this makes good economic sense as well. It just takes an effort ... which America seems unwilling to make.

If, of course, your idea of 'keeping up your standard of living' means driving a huge, fuel-inefficient car and living in a badly insulated house, and these things are so important to you that long-term benefits are unimportant beside them, then I'm done talking... just keep going on like before.

 

[storealex]

Religion is more than faith, Akka. I have faith in my self, but I don't worship my self. I have faith in science, but I don't worship science. I have faith in social democracy, but I don't worship it. etc...

Religion is more than faith. It's worship, there's a divine aspect, there's rituals and so on.

 

[BasketCase]

@Akka: Half right. I say it's more economy freaks on one side, who are unwilling to consider the possibility, and science freaks on the other, who insist global warming IS truth even though the assembled evidence doesn't prove it. They say things along the lines of "this data here and that data over there don't square with the theory of global warming, but we believe it anyway". Which boils down to "we can't prove God exists, but we still know he does". Religion.

Plus, the religious zealots who say global warming is a definite threat are spouting abusive stuff like the following:

And I've kinda given up on you, I have better things to do than spend more hours arguing with you. As to who I should believe, well Im sorry, but I'll choose to believe not "some" scientists, but the majority and the most recognised scientists on the issue, rather than you, who are making your own little theories, that I don't give crap for, since you're could easily be overlooking something that a real scientist, who spend more than a few hours on a internet forum studying the issue, would see.

....at anybody who disagrees with them. The fact is, most scientists SAY they agree global warming is a threat--not because they think it's a threat, but because they'll get laughed out of their offices by the majority if they say anything else. Conformity before truth.

 

[Akka]

The difference being, that the "science freaks" have precisely science to back them.
This is the exact same difference than between Creationists and Evolutionists.

 

[CenturionV]

The difference being, that the "science freaks" have precisely science to back them.
This is the exact same difference than between Creationists and Evolutionists.

Right, and we all know how infallible scientists are, they never come to mass wrong conclusions, we can be sure we got all the basics down pat, after all we are evolved beings right? It was only those primitaves back 100-200 years ago that got major things wrong scientifically, we've evolved beyond the ability to make a wrong conclusion en masse ....

I'll take my chance with creationist scientist thank you very much....

....at anybody who disagrees with them. The fact is, most scientists SAY they agree global warming is a threat--not because they think it's a threat, but because they'll get laughed out of their offices by the majority if they say anything else. Conformity before truth.

All true dude. However I'm not interested in limiting this to global warming, this is rampant all over the scientific community in every single field, from biology to astronomy, to chemistry, its the one rule all but a very few must abide in the scientific community.

 

[Pikachu]

@Akka: Half right. I say it's more economy freaks on one side, who are unwilling to consider the possibility, and science freaks on the other, who insist global warming IS truth even though the assembled evidence doesn't prove it. They say things along the lines of "this data here and that data over there don't square with the theory of global warming, but we believe it anyway". Which boils down to "we can't prove God exists, but we still know he does". Religion.

Except that the assembled evidence does prove global warming and that all available data do square with the theory of global warming.

The results of the ongoing climate changes are uncertain, and there are certainly some aspects that are not completely understood yet, but your idea that some data don’t square with the theory of climate change is simply wrong.

More greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere do inevitably trap more energy inside our planet and give climate changes. That is a simple physical necessity.

The fact is, most scientists SAY they agree global warming is a threat--not because they think it's a threat, but because they'll get laughed out of their offices by the majority if they say anything else. Conformity before truth.

You must have misunderstood how the scientific community works. All scientists dream about one day being able do disprove an accepted scientific theory. Those who are able to do that get an incredibly high status within the scientific community and quickly become very rich too. They have good chances to win a Nobel Prize and they always get their name in all future science books. Trust me; many scientists would happily sell their soul for evidence that disprove a prestigious theory like global warming!

 

[storealex]

Look's like Centurion didn't read the thread.

I'll repeat myself:

Sure, science has been wrong before. But how often, compared to how often it's been right? Is it a gamble you'd like to take? Bet money on? What are the odds? Why not play it safe?


Basketcase:

Religion is more than faith, Basketcase. I have faith in my self, but I don't worship my self. I have faith in science, but I don't worship science. I have faith in social democracy, but I don't worship it. etc...

Religion is more than faith. It's worship, there's a divine aspect, there's rituals and so on.

You take one issue, that you believe fit's on both religion and this theory, and therefore it's the same thing, so by your logic: A stone can fly on it's own. Basketcase can't fly his own. Ergo Basketcase is a stone.


Oh and the "fact" about people getting laughed off, because they dare to raise questions on global warming... That's a rather huge generalisation, and quite farfetched as well. The truth is, that though this is probably the case for a few, minor scientists, the rest of the community works differently. Scientists are curious, wanna shot down all theories, wanna tests if eachothers theories holds water, etc. And history have clearly showed, that if a scientist is concinced he is right, he'll most likely procede with his work, regardless of their laughter.

 

[Inter4]

You take one issue, that you believe fit's on both religion and this theory, and therefore it's the same thing, so by your logic: A stone can fly on it's own. Basketcase can't fly his own. Ergo Basketcase is a stone.

Oh my god, you used ''ergo'' !!! You are very wise!


NOTE: Stupid post brought to you by Inter32. Please dont pay attention and dont make a big deal out of this. I have no intention in being part of this discussion.

 

[BasketCase]

I see myself as more of an immovable object than a stone per se.

More greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere do inevitably trap more energy inside our planet and give climate changes. That is a simple physical necessity.

Where's the proof? Simply seeing rising temperatures and climate changes isn't enough; it must be proven that those rising temperatures and climate changes are a result of man-made greenhouse gases, instead of something the planet did naturally. This has not been done; the only temperature increase we've seen is in line with natural spikes the planet has had in the last few millenia. Instead the brainiac community is going "we don't have proof, but we believe it anyway".

Plus there's the fact that the planet is overdue for another 8-degree-Celsius drop in average temperature. We can't afford to "not mess with the environment" and just let it change naturally, because sometime in the next few thousand years the planet is going to naturally become a giant Safeway frozen food section. This is something I see absolutely NOBODY in the scientific community addressing.

 

[Pikachu]

Where's the proof?

Try the first law of thermodynamics, Stefan-Bolzmann’s law of radiation, absorption properties of different gasses, some quantum mechanics and a few other fundamental physical relations. It is a bit complicated, but there is no mumbo-jumbo in the theory about how the greenhouse effect works. Fundamental physical relations give directly that more greenhouse gasses in an atmosphere must trap more energy inside the planet.

Simply seeing rising temperatures and climate changes isn't enough;

Who said that the observed rise in global temperature is proof for man made climate change? The understanding of physics is the only solid proof. The observed temperature trend is NOT proof for man made climate changes, but it is what would be expected because of an increased greenhouse effect.

it must be proven that those rising temperatures and climate changes are a result of man-made greenhouse gases,

The amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has evidently increased because of human activities. The laws of physics tell that the temperature would have been significantly lower if there were less greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. This is hard evidence for human made climate change. The laws of physics cannot be cheated!

instead of something the planet did naturally. This has not been done; the only temperature increase we've seen is in line with natural spikes the planet has had in the last few millenia.

The temperature change is happening a lot faster than ever observed before though, but the observed reaction is not needed to prove the increased green house effect in the first place.

By the way, do you have an alternative explanation to why the global temperature is increasing?

Instead the brainiac community is going "we don't have proof, but we believe it anyway".

But we have solid proof! Maybe you haven’t noticed, but there is a science called physics. The proof lies within the fundamental principles of physics.

Plus there's the fact that the planet is overdue for another 8-degree-Celsius drop in average temperature. We can't afford to "not mess with the environment" and just let it change naturally, because sometime in the next few thousand years the planet is going to naturally become a giant Safeway frozen food section. This is something I see absolutely NOBODY in the scientific community addressing.

How do you know the planet is overdue for another temperature drop? And why can we afford to a rapid increase in global temperature if we mess too much with the environment, but not afford a very slow decrease in global temperature if we don’t mess enough with the environment?

 

[MattII]

How unbiased is this so called 'evidence' since there were many studies done up to the 1970's that proved that the lead in petrol was no danger to health. The research was funded by petrol companies who wanted to 'prove' that leaded petrol was no more dangerous than unleaded petrol. On this basis, who is funding the scientists to 'prove' that global warming has some big human cause.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

PICTURES
GRAPHS

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/GIS_Global_1880_2005.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

Stop beating the dead horse of the previous graph. Look at this one instead, it's much more recent.

 

[Dragonlord]

How unbiased is this so called 'evidence' since there were many studies done up to the 1970's that proved that the lead in petrol was no danger to health. The research was funded by petrol companies who wanted to 'prove' that leaded petrol was no more dangerous than unleaded petrol. On this basis, who is funding the scientists to 'prove' that global warming has some big human cause.

The petrol companies had an economic motive to fund misleading research. Who has an economic motive to fund misleading research FOR global warming?

You might just as well ask who is funding research to cast doubts on global warming. Maybe those same petrol companies?

The economic interests are obviously on the side of those who DON'T believe in man-made global warming - so, if you're going to accuse scientists of being 'bought', better start on that side of the argument...

 

[BasketCase]

The petrol companies had an economic motive to fund misleading research. Who has an economic motive to fund misleading research FOR global warming?

Corporations looking to make a fast buck on clean-burning fuels or electric cars. Corporations selling industrial CO2 scrubbers. University presidents who want to keep the research bucks flowing in.

Edit:

By the way, do you have an alternative explanation to why the global temperature is increasing?

Yes, and it's the same one I already posted in here many times: EARTH HAS ALREADY HAD TWO HOT SPIKES IN THE PAST TEN THOUSAND YEARS. THIS IS BEFORE HUMAN BEINGS BEGAN TO INDUSTRIALIZE.