Right-wingers who think global warming is a lefty plot

[crazyunits]

actually there are some errors on both sides

climate change is a natural cycle, our Earth goes through periods of extremities, especially when the polarities shift

our carbon activity (industry, population, transportation, organized animal farming etc...) DO have an impact on this natural cycle, i.e. shortening the frequency of climate change and increasing its impact

2 points I want to make here:

1. Climate change is INEVITABLE. It did not suddenly happened due to industrialization and globalization.

2. Its impact is only as catastrophic as we as a species make it to be. For example, nature itself will balance adjust itself, be it the extinction of certain species, the emergence of new species and what not. But since we humans have invested so much time, energy and resources in IMMOVABLE infrastructures (i.e. San Francisco and other coastal cities are, for the lack of a better word, <removed> therefore we might want to start reinvesting some of those energy from PREVENTION to adaptation, emergency response (FEMA can suck a big one) and the like.

Moderator Action: I'm sure you could have found a better word. Please watch your language.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Prepare for the future, boys and girls.

 

[Death_Machine]

Great logic.

If it gets warm in my house in the winter, it must mean that winter took a walk and is replaced by summer every time I get home from work, because it was just as warm in my house as it was in the summer. It wouldn't be because I turn the heater on when I get home.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11647

1. That is a flawed analogy.
2. The article starts off by saying that there is a lack of recorded data for periods long ago. As far as I am concerned that does nothing but strengthen my point of view. All the theories that follow are fine & dandy, but they are just that: theories.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

1. That is a flawed analogy.
2. The article starts off by saying that there is a lack of recorded data for periods long ago. As far as I am concerned that does nothing but strengthen my point of view. All the theories that follow are fine & dandy, but they are just that: theories.

1. No it's not. You basically claim: if x was the cause once, it must be the cause again. Your words: If the planet gets warmer or more cool it is because of what the sun is doing, not anything we're doing down here.

You know this how?
2. You were wondering how it is possible that before the industrialisation the Earth could have been hotter than today. The article simply provides scenarios how this could have happened.

Since it is indeed not proven, it would be dishonest to claim: This is how it has happened.

What is clear from the study of past climate is that many factors can influence climate: solar activity, oscillations in Earth's orbit, greenhouse gases, ice cover, vegetation on land (or the lack of it), the configuration of the continents, dust thrown up by volcanoes or wind, the weathering of rocks and so on.

The details are seldom as simple as they seem at first: sea ice reflects more of the Sun's energy than open water but can trap heat in the water beneath the ice, for example. There are complex interactions between many of these factors that can amplify or dampen changes in temperature.

The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.

I avoid claiming or posting articles that claim: This is how it is. No ifs or buts. Like you did saying: it's just the sun.

 

[Death_Machine]

Sorry dude, no dice here.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Great argument.

 

[Berzerker]

It is the rate of change which is so unusual, not the fact that change is happening. A rapid increase in greenhouse gases accompanied by a rapid increase in global temperatures.

What rapid increase? And I believe temps drive CO2, not the other way around.

On another note, main sequence stars (like Sol) increase in luminosity as they age, yet Earth was hotter in the past, during the Mesozoic, when there was significantly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, among other things (like Antarctica not being at the south pole, blocking ocean currents)

CO2 spikes are not normal, they typically follow a major impact or outgassing event.

 

[Gustave5436]

What rapid increase?

The one which has occurred since right about the time of the industrial revolution.

And I believe temps drive CO2, not the other way around.

Do you also believe that higher temperatures drive human consumption of fossil fuels, rather than the other way around?

CO2 spikes are not normal, they typically follow a major impact or outgassing event.

What I was saying was that in the past, despite decreased solar activity relative to today, temperatures were higher than they are now. Furthermore, some temporary spike hundreds of millions of years ago would not be easily detectable. Temperatures were consistently higher for a long period of time, on the scale of millions of years.

2. The article starts off by saying that there is a lack of recorded data for periods long ago. As far as I am concerned that does nothing but strengthen my point of view. All the theories that follow are fine & dandy, but they are just that: theories.

Technically, while the word "theory" essentially means "unsubstantiated claim/idea" in common usage, it means something quite different in science. Evolution by natural selection, for example, is theory, but no legitimate biologist would seriously doubt it.

 

[Death_Machine]

Great argument.

Sorry dude. You're the one trying to persuade me. I made my position clear & you have not given me anything new to change my mind. I'm not worried about changing yours.

Technically, while the word "theory" essentially means "unsubstantiated claim/idea" in common usage, it means something quite different in science. Evolution by natural selection, for example, is theory, but no legitimate biologist would seriously doubt it.

It means nothing different in science than in common usage. If something can be proven then it is no longer a theory. Evolution occurs, it is just to what degree can be argued. Do I believe in evolution, yes. Do I believe we came from apes, no.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sorry dude. You're the one trying to persuade me. I made my position clear & you have not given me anything new to change my mind. I'm not worried about changing yours.

I don't come here to change anyone's mind and I sure as heck aren't trying to persuade you.

You wondered: Ok, so why did the planet get hot & experience ice ages before we as humans industrialized? and claimed: What is so hard to understand that the planet has been hot before and had ice ages long before anything we are doing now was around. If the planet gets warmer or more cool it is because of what the sun is doing, not anything we're doing down here.

With that last sentence you make a positive absolute claim. I simply provided some options. Without saying: this is how it is. What you do with them, ignore them and continue claiming that if industrialisation wasn't the cause before, it can't be now, or realise that it's a little more complicated that that is up to you.

It means nothing different in science than in common usage. If something can be proven then it is no longer a theory. Evolution occurs, it is just to what degree can be argued. Do I believe in evolution, yes. Do I believe we came from apes, no.

First, you have no understanding what a Scientific Theory is. Second, the Evolution Theory doesn't claim we came from apes. It claims apes and humans have the same ancestors.

Maybe this will help: http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

* Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
* Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
* Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
* Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
* Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
* Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

 

[Ammar]

It means nothing different in science than in common usage.

Be sure to mention that to a number theorist some time. Okay, that's mathematics not natural sciences.

But here's a explanation by the United States National Academy of Sciences.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Looks like you were wrong. Why am I not surprised considering the level of scientific understanding you demonstrate so nicely all over this thread?

 

[Gustave5436]

It means nothing different in science than in common usage. If something can be proven then it is no longer a theory. Evolution occurs, it is just to what degree can be argued. Do I believe in evolution, yes. Do I believe we came from apes, no.

If something can be proven then it is theory and no longer hypothesis.

Science is not faith, one cannot "believe in" evolution or "believe" that Homo sapiens is descended from other (as we are, ourselves, apes) apes. One can accept that, with our current level of understanding, the most reasonable explanation is that evolution occurs by natural selection and that humans shared their last common ancestor with the pan genus a few million years ago, but not believe.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ok, so why did the planet get hot & experience ice ages before we as humans industrialized?

There have been animal extinctions for millions of years before humans appeared. Knowing this, would you agree that it's foolish to believe that humans caused the Dodo to go extinct? Or is it obvious why the dodo went extinct?

Global warming is the same thing. Just because there have been other mechanisms, it doesn't mean that humans aren't the current mechanism.

 

[MobBoss]

There have been animal extinctions for millions of years before humans appeared. Knowing this, would you agree that it's foolish to believe that humans caused the Dodo to go extinct? Or is it obvious why the dodo went extinct?

No. The real question is would the dodo (moa, or insert other large flightless bird here) have gone extinct without human interaction?

Answer: Possibly. All it would have taken was for a predatory species to be introduced that the birds had no way to defend against.

Global warming is the same thing. Just because there have been other mechanisms, it doesn't mean that humans aren't the current mechanism.

Cows farting are part of the mechanism as well. /shrug. Humans being part of the mechanism doesnt mean they are the sole or even the defining part of the mechanism either.

 

[El_Machinae]

Cow farting is due to humans, since we've massively tipped the ratio of the various types of land animals. We even engage in unsustainable farming in order to generate more cows, with their cow farts.

 

[MobBoss]

Cow farting is due to humans, since we've massively tipped the ratio of the various types of land animals. We even engage in unsustainable farming in order to generate more cows, with their cow farts.

I remind you there used to be millions upon millions of buffalo on the plains of the USA. Not all cow (or animal) farting is attributable to humans.

Also, volcanos are also part of the 'natural process' as well. These can also effect the climate on a global scale, and have nothing to do with humans.

 

[Ammar]

I remind you there used to be millions upon millions of buffalo on the plains of the USA. Not all cow (or animal) farting is attributable to humans.

Also, volcanos are also part of the 'natural process' as well. These can also effect the climate on a global scale, and have nothing to do with humans.

True enough, but those tend toward natural balance points that shift very slowly in comparision to our industrial growth.

Meaning they don't explain the rise in CO2. There are method based on C14 percentage that can give us a general idea of how much we get from different types of sources.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wild buffalo farts are a different beast than cow farts, since their diets are different.

And the land's carrying capacity for bison is vastly different than for cows, since we use unsustainable farming for the cows. There are ~120 million cows in North America. Bison numbers varied from 30-60 million.

Humans have vastly changed the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Historically, we've completely outstripped even volcanos (steadily), despite their being a talking point for AGW deniers. Our footprint, from cows to cars, is much more vast than people realise.

Even massive volcanic events are (in the end) a tiny component, because the human effect is totalled from year to year, unceasingly.

 

[Cutlass]

What risk? And whats with the notion that people getting money makes them dishonest when they're on the other side of the debate? Are the environmentalists lying because they get money? I'm not so sure climatologists are that unified, paleo-climatologists are the people who keep telling us how miserable it was during the ice age and those ice cores they keep drilling are the best evidence for the cyclical nature of our climate.

I sure hope all the stuff we pump into the atmosphere helps warm us but I strongly suspect climate is out of our hands, the mechanism(s) driving the ice ages dont care about us and we'll be lucky to fend off the more devastating effects of a new ice age. When that time arrives we'll be looking at ways to pollute our atmosphere even more with greenhouse gases.

The risk of global warming is desertification of arable land, sea level rise flooding most of the worlds major cities, and the displacement of some 2 billion people. When risks are that high, rational and responsible people act to minimize the risks.

So the people who disagree with the AGW 'consensus' are being paid to disagree, and those who are receiving billions in scientific funding through research grants are purely objective?

Certainly not all of them. But when people employed by the energy industry are reporting findings which favor the energy industry, a conflict of interest should be assumed. There are people who are paid to gather data and figure out what that data means. Among that group there is disagreement. And there are people who are paid to support positions that benefit their employers. There's notably less disagreement in that camp.

 

[Narz]

I remind you there used to be millions upon millions of buffalo on the plains of the USA. Not all cow (or animal) farting is attributable to humans.

As El Mac said the two are not comparable. Buffalos eat their natural diet (grass & weeds) whereas factory farmed cattle & stuffed full of corn, grains & other unnatural (for them) foods which cause improper digestion & alot more waste (sh!t & farts).

Just another reason to not support factory farms.

Before anyone says OMG Narz is trying to convert me to vegetarianism! , remember there are humanely raised animals available & even if you only care about your own taste-buds any meat-eater (including me) will tell you grass-fed tastes vastly superior to grain-fed.

 

[Dubai Vol]

I like AGW skeptics, because I hate people. The skeptics are doing a great job of making sure that nothing gets done, and I thank them for it. The longer the status quo is preserved, the worse the consequences, and that makes me happy.

I don't argue details with the skeptics, it's a waste of time. After all, if they refuse to accept the findings of, among others, The American Meteorological Society, The National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, The White House, the American Association for the Advancement of Science,The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to name only a few, why do you think they will believe some guy on the internet?

Keep doing what you're doing, folks. I don't have kids. I don't care.