Right-wingers who think global warming is a lefty plot

[Mon Mauler]

The IPCC is a scientific organization just like any other.

I'm pretty sure that's what an intergovernmental body is.

Edit: Sorry. Thought the quote was, "The IPCC is not just policy makers." My point is that an intergovernmental body absolutely is a set of policy makers.

 

[Mon Mauler]

The IPCC is a scientific organization just like any other.

This is a common tactic of ___ denyers. If you don't like a fact, you demand the source. Once you have the source you blow it off and demand more. There's no way to win.

The graph is a simple depiction of well established data. There's no way to spin it politically. You asked for a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature; there it is. You can hate the organization, but data is data.

First of all, I didn't demand the source for that graph. Second of all, I never questioned the reliability of the data presented. Don't accuse me of things I did not do.

Most importantly, however, even looking at that graph, as I said in a previous post, doesn't it look like CO2 is rising AFTER temperature rises?

Lastly, to clarify my last post, the IPCC characterizes itself as a "scientific intergovernmental body." That absolutely does mean that it is a group of policy makers. Governments make policy, after all.

 

[stuge]

First of all, I didn't demand the source for that graph. Second of all, I never questioned the reliability of the data presented. Don't accuse me of things I did not do.

Most importantly, however, even looking at that graph, as I said in a previous post, doesn't it look like CO2 is rising AFTER temperature rises?

Lastly, to clarify my last post, the IPCC characterizes itself as a "scientific intergovernmental body." That absolutely does mean that it is a group of policy makers. Governments make policy, after all.

You wish to disprove more greehouse gases=higher temperature by insisting on what that graph looks like to you?

My head is starting to hurt. I think I'll go sleep now.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Mon Mauler wants a CAUSE-EFFECT link, not a correlation. I don't know if anything in the study the graph comes from discusses the causes and how it<s proven they do this effect.

Correlations don't mean anything. I might as well correlate the decreasing popularity of monocles to increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

 

[Mon Mauler]

Mon Mauler wants a CAUSE-EFFECT link, not a correlation. I don't know if anything in the study the graph comes from discusses the causes and how it<s proven they do this effect.

Correlations don't mean anything. I might as well correlate the decreasing popularity of monocles to increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Precisely, SimonL.

You said it much more eloquently than me.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Precisely, SimonL.

You said it much more eloquently than me.

Too bad I'm not really "on your side", hehe.

So the debate can't end like this. The thing is that giving you a direct cause-effect link is a monumental scientific task, and I think we're headed there, which doesn't prevent many people to pre-empt the result and try to apply the good ideas right now.

But there are individual processes that are well proven... You can individually prove that cutting trees or doing crappy plantations and agricultural practices will increase CO2 emissions, then you can prove that CO2 increases temperature. Then you can individually prove that higher temperatures thaw permafrost. Then you can individually prove that thawing permafrost releases methane and such. But putting all this in one study, under one guy, making this one "gaianesque" study, is monumental work.

And ecological studies being what they are. It's always case per case, "it worked here but maybe won't work in this other country". There's always a way to question the result. But that's science, in the end.

 

[Till]

I am certainly not challenging the greenhouse effect or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

CO2, though, is only one of many greenhouse gases (most of it's water vapor, IIRC), and it represents a very small amount of the greehouse gasses in the atmosphere. Along the same lines, the human contribution to the rise in greenhouse gasses is statistically, very slight.

In fact, I'm certain I've seen various studies where the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were many times higher than they are now before we ever started burning fossil fuels.

Also, I seem to remember an article in one of the mags I subscribe to, could be 'Science', that was saying that historically (they determined this from ice core samples, I think) whenever CO2 levels and temperatures both shifted, it was shown that the shift in CO2 levels occurred AFTER the shift in temperature.

I promise I will get the proper cites for a couple interesting books/articles on the topic whenever I can escape from work.

I'm glad i had the wrong impression, then! The most important greenhouse gases are water vapor (as you mentioned), carbon dioxide methane, and ozone. We directly increase the amount of carbon dioxide and methane and used to do so for ozone. The amount of water vapor depends on the general temperature and if we increase the later through the other gases, it will go up as well (up to a point). It serves as an example for how our relatively small contribution can be leveraged into a significant effect.

It's true that the CO2 levels were higher in the past, but i don't see what that has to do with anthropomorphically induced climate change. Earth's climate amd atmosphere has changed radically since it acquired both. Nobody denies that. It's also correct that temperature can be a driver for CO2 levels. The New Scientist and the British Royal Society discuss possible mechanisms. One contributor are oceans, which release carbon dioxide as they heat up, and absorb it as they cool down.

But since you agree that the greenhouse effect exists (and therefore agree that CO2 is a driver for climate change), i, again, don't see how this is relevant.

 

[AngryZealot]

First of all, I didn't demand the source for that graph. Second of all, I never questioned the reliability of the data presented. Don't accuse me of things I did not do.

Sorry about that. That was a response to a different poster, not you.

It doesn't look to me that CO2 rise follows temperature rise. The time scale on the x-axis is too large to tell. In any case I'm sure you could cherry pick a lot of points to go either way.

Speaking of correlations...

 

[Oerdin]

Yeah, you should see some of the nutty right-wing conspiracy theories out there about how the government is making up global warming & the fact that we need to take care of the environment so they can seize land, relocate everyone and kill off "80% of the population".

I think it gives some folks some weird comfort to believe that all-powerful humans are ruining their lives rather than taking responsibility for being part of the problem.

It also feeds into people's sense of entitlement (like Dick Cheney said "the American way of life is non-negotiable") and climate change is probably the scariest looming uncertainty of our times. So it's natural people would deny it, making up conspiracies if necessary.

Climate change also smacks right-wing ideology into the "failed human enterprises" bin. Humans, en masse, in a consumer driven society, are clearly not acting in their own best interests (in the long term), this is now undeniable. Unless you biodiversity is plummeting (on land & at sea), the climate is changing, etc.

Really, it makes perfect sense hard-righters & scared young libertarian fanboys would be terrified to admit that human consumer decisions, en masse, might devastate the planet (and by "the planet" I mean the planet's ability to support human existence). Even without global warming evidence suggests that your average human is fairly poor at making wise, long-term decisions (especially in our current society that encourages us to live for the moment & "treat ourselves"). The massive amount of consumer debt we face (not throwing stones, I owe a bit myself) is evidence alone of this (plus people who bought houses they couldn't afford, the obesity epidemic, etc. etc.).

It's time to stop pretending that any one man can be an island & that you're no more responsible for your community or the Earth itself than you are to the rocks on Mars. Libertarianism is, at it's core, a hands off, "not my problem", "que sera sera", philosophy. Mainstream right-wingism (as it exists today in America) is... well, I don't even know, the worst of libertarianism, the worst of corporate socialism (which I commend libertarians for not supporting, if a libertarian became prez & eliminated meat & dairy subsidies, that alone would massive decrease American carbon emissions drastically), and the worst of religiosity* (and arbitrary & foolish moral absolutes imposed on their fellows - no woman's right to have sovereignty over her body, gays can't marry, or even have sex [sodomy] with each other in some states, teaching Creationism in science class, etc.). Also, fundamentalists Christians (including Bush supposedly) believe in end times anyway, so why would global warming matter. According to them Yahweh, not Gaia, decides who gets to live or die & they see respect for (God forbid worship of) the Earth as almost as bad as Golden Calf worship. "He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal." (John 12:25) WIth an attitude like that why would any self-respecting (er, self-hating?) Christian care about the environment? Life in heaven is what matters. Screw the Earth & Al Gore's phony ploys to get us to trade in our SUV (I wonder if one of those could fit thru the eye of a needle ), the Lord said dominate the Earth by golly & that's what I'm going to do, it's all going to end when Christ returns anyway!

* Keep in mind I said "the worst of religiosity", not that religious sentiment is, in & of itself, bad. So please don't take that as a flame.

Excellent post.

 

[Berzerker]

What do you think is our motivation is for making this phenomenon up?

cant speak to motivation but I do study the ice core data and it tells me we're within normal parameters and in a very, very pleasant period. And it appears to me ideal conditions require global warming. When most of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice, that aint ideal... So I welcome more global warming and it would be nice if the left gave the matter some thought before acting like a warmer planet is a bad thing...

Paraphrasing Arthur C Clarke, pollution might save us from the next ice age

Who said, "Civilization is but a brief interlude between ice ages"?

 

[Bill3000]

cant speak to motivation but I do study the ice core data and it tells me we're within normal parameters and in a very, very pleasant period. And it appears to me ideal conditions require global warming. When most of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice, that aint ideal... So I welcome more global warming and it would be nice if the left gave the matter some thought before acting like a warmer planet is a bad thing...

The problem is the transition, not the result itself.

 

[Berzerker]

Climate change also smacks right-wing ideology into the "failed human enterprises" bin. Humans, en masse, in a consumer driven society, are clearly not acting in their own best interests (in the long term), this is now undeniable.

How do you know what is in our best interests?

Really, it makes perfect sense hard-righters & scared young libertarian fanboys would be terrified to admit that human consumer decisions, en masse, might devastate the planet (and by "the planet" I mean the planet's ability to support human existence).

Its no coincidence the most polluted lands on the planet are "public" lands, land owned by no one or the govt. And as long as people on the left are using electricity etc, spare the rest of us the lectures. Libertarians care about private property, and people who own property tend to take better care of it than people who dont.

Even without global warming evidence suggests that your average human is fairly poor at making wise, long-term decisions (especially in our current society that encourages us to live for the moment & "treat ourselves").

No one said freedom (or life) is perfect... Any random individual knows what they want better than you, true?

The massive amount of consumer debt we face (not throwing stones, I owe a bit myself) is evidence alone of this (plus people who bought houses they couldn't afford, the obesity epidemic, etc. etc.).

Sounds like you're now indicting a bunch of people based on a small minority... So what is yer solution? A small minority makes our decisions? Or that whacky majority?

 

[Berzerker]

The problem is the transition, not the result itself.

The only thing I see as important are sea levels, and we better start making plans and doing something about it.

 

[Bill3000]

The only thing I see as important are sea levels, and we better start making plans and doing something about it.

It's called "climate change" for a reason - there would be massive changes in the climate that would drastically alter land for settlement and agriculture. And this doesn't even require the sea levels to change that much. Areas that were previously farming paradises would become useless due to massive droughts, for example.

 

[Berzerker]

It's called "climate change" for a reason - there would be massive changes in the climate that would drastically alter land for settlement and agriculture. And this doesn't even require the sea levels to change that much. Areas that were previously farming paradises would become useless due to massive droughts, for example.

That happens anyway, climate changes. And the worst on "record" occurred during ice ages. The Younger Dryas has now been targeted for the mass extinction of megafauna and the rebirth of life that followed was during an even warmer period. But with global warming more land can be used and more water becomes available. We dont know about changes in drought patterns, global warming increases rainfall (it should anyway) and that matters more than regional drought cycles we cant control yet. Maybe pumping ocean water into the Sahara and creating a large inland sea would moderate drought in Africa... The Nevada Basin sure could use water...

edit, its called climate change because "environmentalists" needed a new catch phrase, global warming dont work too well if the world aint warming.

 

[warpus]

There is no denying that the climate changes, whether we do anything to it or not..

There is also no denying the fact that we are doing a lot to the environment and to this planet.

Does anyone really think we aren't influencing the natural climate cycles of this planet, to some extent?

Doesn't it make sense that we should study our influence, and try to limit it a bit.. seeing as how we're dumping a lot of pollutants into the atmosphere and the oceans? Surely this can't be a good thing for the planet..

 

[Merkinball]

Bill, it's not really about taxes. It's about control. It's really no different than any other left-wing agenda. Make people dependent on big brother, gain power, control people. Just look at some of the posts from the global warming crowd.

Humans, en masse, in a consumer driven society, are clearly not acting in their own best interests - Narz

evidence suggests that your average human is fairly poor at making wise, long-term decisions - Narz

What do you think crap like this is about in the minds of a global warming supporter? Controlling people that don't think like them. You will use CFL's. You will take the bus to work. You will get rid of your SUV and ride the bus when the bus happens to come around. Your thermostat will be controlled by someone in Sacramento. The approach is purely authoritarian in nature. And to pretend otherwise is absolute foolishness.

This thread is really cute. It's all about science. Science is peer-reviewed. Science can't possibly be about "the monies" no? Yet, if you criticize global warming in academia, you're summarily booted from it, and you never recieve research money again. Global Warming studies are all peer reviewed? The IPCC studies are all peer reviewed? Oh, well gee, nevermind the fact that the IPCC has forced out members who disagreed or criticized their publications internally. Nevermind that numerous figures within the IPCC have left because the IPCC refused to publish internal criticism. How about the notorious hockeystick graph? No manipulated data there at all right? I'm sure the IPCC had some incredibly hard internal peer review on that jammy. Scientists surely would never lie nor manipulate data to forward a cause the brings in BILLIONS of dollars. No way... The only people that are greedy and manipulate politicians and political agendas are oil tycoons. Scientists are pure of heart. Surely this is the case.

In regards to "Science" and "scientists." How can anybody possibly say that this "science" is seemless and truly reviewed when the people producing the articles are pocketing money and forwarding their own way of life, while at the same time anyone who actually criticizes global warming "science" is labeled as a holocaust denier and immediately expunged from academia and forcefully shut up? Seriously people. Listen to yourselves.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I like how every human decision, be it towards the right, or towards the left, is always considered, by the opponents, to be a slippery slope towards an extreme that will undeniably happen. Tell them you want to control gas use a bit more, and you invariably get "1984" pulled out. Tell them you want less control on that one issue, and you automatically end up in a corrupt capitalistic society with the super riches and the cockroach poor.

Come on, we can trust ourselves to not go overboard can we? I hope no one is going to make us use the words "Godwin's Law" now, hehe.

 

[Dida]

It is undisputed that the world is warming up, but whether that is due to human activity is still up to debate. We know that the world had been warmer in the past and it had warmed up at a faster pace than we are experiencing today.

 

[Kerozine]

These threads are typically inconclusive, IMHO.