Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

Humans are not responsible for warming on Mars, and I wish skeptics would stop using this straw man argument. Recent research shows that dust is to blame for the warming. So far there has been no explanation for the natural warming for the past 30 years due to the solar variation remaining stagnant.

Scientists KNOW that humans have attributed to the increase in co2 due to the measurements in isotope concentrations which show that older isotopes of fossil fuels are more prevalent today.
They also KNOW about the increased effect of solar heating of greenhouse gases due to spectrometric readings.

While I do know the enviroment is getting warmer because I was born with skin I think it is mostly media scare in terms of the "we are all gonna die" nonsense being thrown around. I attribute that largely to the increasingly narcissistic tendancies paired with our complete lack of understanding of our own history. Whether this will be the end of days or if this will just be the return to something reminicent of the conditions of the first "little ice age" remains to be seen. I am betting on the latter though.

It is unfortunate to see people jumping on the bandwagon. I am happy to see truth sneaking its way in to the equation here and there. I recently read that someone is actually working to disprove that "If bees go extinct we will all be dead in 4 years" nonsense incorrectly attributed to Albert Einstein (Though even if he had quoted it, unless someone can point out Mr Einstein's Entomology Degree to me anywhere in his biography or on any of the many websites dedicated to the man, his opinion would have been meaningless anyways... He would have had about as much say in the matter as my dentist, me, or the guy who chases birds off the runways at the airport)

That said I think we did speed it back along and while I disagree with the propaganda approach taken towards the whole issue I am beginning to believe it is the only thing that will get people to change their ways. It is unfortunate that we need to rely on shock to wake people up and make them start working towards change but we still have alot of maturing to do as a species, I suppose.

We definitely need a move towards nuclear. Seriously, folks, cut the crap with the antinuclear sentiment. I lived very close to a nuclear power plant for a good portion of my life with no ill effect and if you take into account all the nuclear power plants on earth, the freak shows like the 3 or whatever it was mile isle and chernobyl really are rare occurences.

ever heard of global dimming? Maybe that might counter balance it...or we will be on an insanely hot world with no sunshine!

we'll fix global warming with a nuclear winter!! brilliant!! !

I did say naturally...

Do you actually realize how great the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are? Consider the scale at which the emissions are being churned out, and add that to deforestation. But yet again... there is still decomposition, volcanos, and the ocean, which also contribute a great deal. Volcanoes being like huge chimneys, and the ocean being like a huge CO2 pit. Still, until there is proof that burning fossil fuels on a huge scale does not add greatly to the rate global warming...

Global warming is happening as we speak. Of course, it has happened several times over the course of the Earth's existence, thanks to the "wobble" of the Earth on its axis - for instance, the reason prehistoric insects were able to grow so large is because the Earth of the dinosaurs was warm and tropical virtually all over, with warm shallow seas and a very oxygen-rich atmosphere - it's just that this time, it's not been caused naturally. This is definitely a cause for concern.

http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=6206
A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
NAS: Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions



Related:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/posit ... ange.shtml
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatech ... _2003.html

Disagree with your attempt to frame the debate. Soil erosion is a natural phenomenon. That doesn't mean that human activity can't accelerate erosion greatly, with negative consequences for waterways and future farm productivity. The greenhouse effect is a natural thing (and climate is not always stable), but a human contribution to climate change could also be rather negative.

For the first half of the 20th century, the scientific consensus was that Jews, Blacks, Asians, and other minority races were inferior to Anglo-Saxons and should be the target of eugenics programs. Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and useless in this debate. The reputation and number of scientists on either side of the debate has no bearing on scientific fact.

That said, I personally have not studied the science behind this in enough detail to come to an informed conclusion on the science available, so I have no rational option but to withhold judgment. Regardless of whether or not global warming is real, car exhaust and other sources of pollution are unequivocally bad for the environment and contain worse things than carbon. The issue of environmentalism should not always hinge on global warming because we are dumping pollutants into the oceans, cutting down the forests, etc. In any case I think it would probably be best to err on the side of caution, but also to focus more on the issues that we can definitely have a tangible impact on (ie, let's not burn the rain forest).

i think that this is about where i stand so i voted "somewhere in between".

I think that unless have a handle on ALL ( or most of....perhaps), the data, aswell as very good judgement, any position is pretty much a question of faith. VERY FEW people know enough to pronounce on the probabilities. The so called consensus is disputed by some scientists.

For the moment i put my faith in Bjorn Lomborg's "version" of things. That is that there are many serious problems, ( poverty, poor sanitation, wars, etc) amongst which certain effects of climate change, (whether cyclic, manmade, irreversible, whatever) that need attention, but that projections of global catastrophe are unwise, often inducing behaviours exactly the opposite of useful, positive, measured etc .

I HAVE to put faith in someone's version, because i am not going to spend the hundreds of hours necessary to understand the issues at even the most rudimentary level, with many mistakes of perspective too unless i knew enough to correctly weigh all the elements.

I could do little things, more things, to avoid wastage etc.......if i wasn't so furious with all the people who had me so frightened for at least a decade thinking that the end of the world was really nigh so that i both smoked as if there was no tomorrow (! !) , AND was obsessed with being a "good" ecologist; eating seasonal, local, organic; walking, turning the heating down/off. I was a convert. I was a willing, obedient, trustful convert to the whole disaster story/faith. Until i read "The Sceptical Ecologist", 3 years ago now.

In fact i think my "choice" ( 10 years ago) of the man who became father to my son was like a kind of unconscious rebellion/ "ultimate sin" against this "religion", ( which might partly explain the unprecedently fabulous sex-life ), because while hitching between organic farms, i met a technical-SALESman, in his air-conditioned car, selling fossil-fuelled heating-appliances to factories, shops, etc, driving 100's, sometimes even 1000's, of km a week to SELL things. If i hadn't been so utterly shocked by the idea of "an intimate relationship with" an embodiment of "planet-destroying"-capitalism, which is what he seemed to me, i might have found him less exciting.

Last edited by ouinon on 22 Feb 2008, 1:04 pm, edited 16 times in total.

Global warming is not real. Follow the money.
Who is selling carbon credits?
Who controls most of the news media?
Who tells people to lower their carbon footprint and ignores their own?
The same group of people? Amazing but true.

I wish we were getting global warming. It would be a very positive event. Cold areas getting warmer, opening farmland. More moisture in the air, meaning more rain - deserts will turn back to prairies and forests. Flooding of the lowlands will increase fish and shrimp populations. Less need for these itchy scratchy clothes.

If we can affect the climate and cause global warming, I say go for it. Too bad it will take 10,000 years.

Last edited by Mudboy on 22 Feb 2008, 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Right, we don't need science to determine if global warming is real - just apply political conspiracy methodology, and with vague innuendo, we can dismiss that whole ball of wax.



Great if you are in Canada and Iceland and marginal lands become suitable for agriculture. Not so good for other areas. While some areas will probably get more rain, others will probably get less ... with more energy, high pressure systems may be more persistent in areas, and these are associated with drought.

Also not so good for low-lying areas, hurricane prone areas, or people that don't like tornadoes.

i was thinking about how environmental issues have become a religion, with many people taking up positions almost entirely on trust/faith, based on a few articles etc, so that what were/are often perfectly reasonable and sensible warnings related to pollution, etc, as Orwell pointed out, have been bundled all together with Judgement Day style fervour, despair, panic, finger-pointing, and sometimes very expensive, posssibly pointless, even damaging counter measures.

i was thinking how for many years now, even when in creative flow of drawing, and full of excitement and conviction, i frequently reproach myself for using paper. I experienced this again a week ago, as i reached for another sheet of chlorine bleached paper, "Waste!"....... but i overrode this internal comment, and continued, because i was full of faith in what i was doing.

HOWEVER when i do not see the point in doing anything, when i do not have a purpose, am just surviving to survive, which is most of the time, when humans seem like a blight, a virus running out of control, when all we're here to do seems to be to reproduce and hang on THEN i don't manage to override the internal comment" Waste!".
EVERYTHING seems like a waste when i feel like that, a waste of time and ENERGY, and resources. When i can not persuade myself of the point of anything all that matters is to conserve energy.

Sooo...! ! I am wondering, is it possible that in fact the "global warming/climate catastrophe" /end of the world "repent", etc stuff, is actually a symptom.

....a symptom of the increasingly widespread attitude/belief in the dominant societies that there is no point to anything, other than "continuing".
( Perhaps the natural reaction is to batten down, become a kind of spore, waiting for a reason to wake up again and grow, which might make sense; perhaps there is a super ice-laden, or fuel-rich, meteorite on route for our part of the galaxy, which we could use as a space ship! We just need to hang on......!)

i think it's possible that the global warming scare is actually about a far deeper and more difficult problem, to do with the current "absence" of a publically recognised reason for the human species to carry on existing, a purpose..

...like expansion and growth, into space, OR something else in their lives, religion? whatever; who knows, but i think that while there doesn't seem much point to carrying on, ( for what? ) ALL use of resources seems a waste.

Space travel/colonisation might be good, might seem WORTH it!

Last edited by ouinon on 22 Feb 2008, 4:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.

WOW! You sure are full of doom and gloom.
What I know: I have yet to see any "science to determine if global warming is real" or not, or if humans can have any effect on it. I can find plenty of scientists and data supporting all sides of the argument. I do care about what is proven, and since nothing is proven yet, I’ll call this a religious movement too. Lately many people follow the dogma from what I call The Church of Global Climate Control (CGCC).
What I see: I do see the media constantly publicizing the beliefs of the CGCC. I do see rich people trying, and succeeding in, getting richer from the "donations" to that church. I do see those two groups dismissing the findings of scientist who don’t agree. Further I see them treat those who do not believe as heretical. Are you trying to make me feel like a heretic?
What I believe: I believe the media playing on peoples fears to increase their ratings. I believe some of the rich are encouraging the media to keep the story one sided, so they can make more money off this. The Church of Global Climate Control is pure fear mongering about unproven theories. It is all about playing with the minds of the public, for fun and profit.

I am not dismissing anything. I really don't care if we are having global warming or not. I would be happy to have global warming though. It is not like "OMFG! We're all gonna die!! !" You and I have no idea how climate change will affect the weather. Neither do the scientists. I believe things will get better in some areas and worse in others; but I am an optimist. If the temperature of the earth rises, I think the world will be a warmer, happier place.

No, I said that there would be winners and losers from global change. I didn't say it would be the end of the world.



The evidence that smoking causes cancer piled up for decades. Throughout that time, there was a strong resistance - people claimed that there was evidence for and against smoking causing cancer, even claims that smoking was only proven to cause statistics. The same thing is going on here... the evidence keeps piling up, more and more scientists are saying that human activities do affect the climate, the industries most affected are covertly funding propaganda to create FUD and buy time. Suit yourself - there are still people that claim that no one has conclusively proven that smoking causes cancer.



There's only one problem with your conspiracy theory. The concern over global warming isn't being led by rich people, isn't being led by the media. It is being led by large numbers of climatologists. The media reports on this story, but didn't create it. If anything, the popular media distorts perception against global warming - they have statements like "some experts believe it, some don't" and imply an evenly divided scientific community. A look at the peer reviewed scientinfic journals shows very little research that questions the notion that carbon dioxide increase the retention of heat (basic physics), or that carbon dioxide levels have risen dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution.

It's all about money? You might be right. Exxon just posted their most profitable quarter - the most money any company has ever made.




Your logic structure in that last paragraph is very interesting. Heres a point by point summary:

1) You say you are not dismissing anything.
2) You don't care if global warming theory is true or not.
3) You do hope global warming theory is true.
4) You dismiss the idea that global warming could be really bad.
5) You claim that no one can predict the effects of global warming.
6) You predict the world will be a better place with global warming .

You have managed to contradict yourself on every point you made there! Congratulations.

I'm a pessimist, and the end is nigh. The Greenland ice sheet will melt, and the northern Atlantic circulation shutdown, causing 2 miles of ice to cover most of north America which will eventually dump monty, along with the whole surface of Canada, right in your back yard under the mother of all moraines!