Global warming myth?!

1. 0

   Mtbailzposted 11 years ago

   After this year's record setting droughts, how can anyone say global warming isn't real and a problem?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, plenty of people don't accept scientific consensus. I admit I'm not an expert, so I defer to those who are.
      
      The ice pack in Greenland is melting, too, apparently.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Mtbailzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I am no expert either. I wonder why there are many people who don't except logical authority such as scientists.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Well, there is the "Argument from Authority," where one accepts the opinion of an authority figure simply because one is an authority. A single authority, of course, can be mistaken, which is why we get second opinions from doctors on important matters. In the case of climate change, we have had thousands of second opinions, and the overwhelming majority concur.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Is science democracy?  There are very few settled conclusions.  The things that are settled are called laws.  so far there is no law of global warming nor is there a theory of global warming.  Global warming is still hypothetical.  Is ti naturally occuring?  Is it a product of human activity? What activity?  Or is it a political expedient?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Mtbailzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  There is no such thing as a scientifically settled conclusion. This is why when you have so many scientists agreeing on one idea it wields so much academic power. Science isn't meant to be democracy because that would allow anyone, no matter their intelligence and expertise, to claim things that make no sense. Leave that concept of "fact finding" to orthodox religion.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Stephen Govoniposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Interesting point.  Strangely, there is also no evidence against global warming either.  Claiming that it is a natural occurrence, or simply denying it entirely, don't make it any less true.  All evidence from the scientific community identifies a trend in global temperature increase.  This is the point we should all be working from.

                     replyreport
               2. 60

                  twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I isn't a democracy, but it is democratic. A hypothesis is presented, tested, and the results published for others to repeat. If the hypothesis is tested and the results are repeatable, then other scientists say "Yeah, that works," and the hypothesis starts to move from hypothetical to theoretical. Further testing, often peripherally by other disciplines, either confirms the original hypothesis or denies it. Only then does it really gain the stature of theory. Human-caused climate change is passing that test.
                  
                  But here's the thing: let's say climate change ISN'T happening. What's the worst that happens by reducing our use of fossil fuels? We reduce pollution, develop sustainable energy sources, and make the world a better place. Sounds just awful, doesn't it?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Sustainable energy like the dual pipe dreams and stimulus scams of wind and solar?  The United States is sitting on oil, coal and natural gas reserves of over 200 years worth, each and that is at current consumption levels.  Why no emphasis on natural gas - clean burning, plentiful and cheap?  Or nuclear power - France and Japan get huge amounts of energy from nuclear - why don't we?  Instead we are led to believe that solar, which has been pursued vigorously for decades and wind, which is weak and intermittent at best, are actually sufficient to bring 7 billion people to prosperity and plenty.
                     
                     Using fuels that are energy dense, like gasoline and diesel, humanity has fed itself, lighted and heated its homes for decades.  Without a reasonable substitute it will strave, hungry in the dark.  No more evidence is required to demonstrate that no substitute exists than to look around one's own home and name all the things that were grown, produced or delivered by means not requiring a powerful fuel like gasoline. It is an irrational gamble to undo the global oil economy based on FEAR that carbon dioxide, a natural product with multiple sources, is the reason for an unproven anthropogenic global warming.
                     
                     It lacks compassion for the billions not blessed with massive economic and natural resources.  The biggest reason why the human population has grown so rapidly is the food and medicine made available by a global distribution system rooted in petroleum.  How far would a truck with a windmill on the roof get in a day?  Tons, MANY TONS, of emergency supplies can be moved from places where they are produced and gathered to places in need in hours - using petroleum.  If it is night time, how could something running on solar power ever cross the Pacific to deliver aid to Japan or Indonesia after a tsumani?
                     
                     It is a fantasy that has squandered hundreds of billions, world wide.  Billions that could have been used to explore for, find and develope more oil, natural gas and coal.  Solar and wind are nothign more than a rat hole down which liberal, Utopian, fantasists can pund money.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Stephen Govoniposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        You are talking about the difference between harvesting the natural energy that the sun and earth give us, or using limited resources that "might" be potentially damaging to our environment and planet.  It's an argument for sustainability versus 200 years of short term easy energy production.
                        
                        The argument that the technology isn't there yet is flawed as well.  Nothing ever starts out at full efficiency, we need to continue pumping these limited resources towards harvesting the natural energy that the sun and earth will continue providing for billions of years.  Not 200 years... Billions.  That's a big difference.
                        
                        Did you also know that we simply do not have enough resources on this planet.  Everything we have is finite.  How would it feel if 200 years from now we ran out of oil and we actually needed it for some other highly important element?  It's a simple matter of responsibility.  The big oil companies would have you believe we have no choice.  The truth is we do have a choice and we need to work towards our end goal.  The long term survival of our species.
                        
                        I should quit now, but... the governments around the world subsidize oil.  Because it is important and because it is big.  You don't need to fear losing it anytime soon, it's well entrenched in our society.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           How long have we been using petroleum? less than 200 years  Coal? 2000 years Natural gas?  a little over 100 years What did we use before/ Animal fats, dung, wood?  What will the next energy source be?  I can guarantee it won't be solar or wind.
                           
                           People do not, nor can they, survive on what they produce for themselves if they wish to maintain the standard of living much of the world expects.
                           
                           Research into the next energy source has always proceeded and mostly without government compelling theabandonment of the contemporary, primary sources.

                           replyreport
         2. 71

            rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Well the anti global warming lobby latched onto the debunking of the scientist who got the tree ring theory wrong and claimed that that is proof that this is a cyclical period as history reveals. It took just one mis understood fact to turn the whole shooting match upside down. The oil industry and auto industry latched onto the argumant for what reason? To continue unabated in their quest for un restricted and continued profits for their shareholders. The thing is just a big ball of s@#t that when you pick at it someone from the other side comes up with something that stinks worse. The all or nothing reasonong abides very well in our vernacular.

            replyreport
      2. 59

         KK Trainorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, and amazingly the climate was even warmer there between 800 and 1200 A.D. Check it out:
         
         http://www.holloworbs.com/Greenland_vikings.htm
         
         Guess the Vikings ruined everything by cooling things with their activities....

         replyreport
   2. 60

      umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Have there ever been droughts before?  Have there ever been hot summers before?  Why would broken temperature records less than 200 years old cause any concern when the planet is billions of years old.  Most of those billions were at temperatures much higher than the ones experienced this past summer.
      
      Why would one base decisions for one's life on one bad weekend?  We are also told that no matter what we do or do not change we have crossed the tipping point and the disaster is underway.
      
      I wonder why anyone believes in global warming as a bad thing?  Change is the only consistent aspect of nature.  Organisms that fail to adapt die off.  If humans fail to adapt and the climate changes around us we risk extinction.  If we become extinct, so be it.  Another species will evolve that is adapted to the new climate - just as humans did.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Stephen Govoniposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         To clarify, species that fail to adapt die off.  The Earth is warmer than it has been but it's a small selection of time when compared to the history of the earth.
         
         So we should adapt to these rapid changes.  Ok, then we should stop causing these short term fluctuations in global temperatures.  Our adaptability will be defined by our ability as a species to alter our behaviors in a way that continues our survival.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What proof is thate of a causal relationship between short term fluctuations and human activity or is it a scale of convenience not proof? Aren't short term fluctuations in local weather conditions mearely that, weather?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Stephen Govoniposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               It's hard to face the truth.  Humans tend to circumvent issues searching for more evidence to support action.  We have proof that the Earth is warming and we ask ourselves why.  Unfortunately, evidence supports significant increases in temperature as we entered the industrial ages and began burning fossil fuels.  The largest increases have incurred in our most recent history.
               
               I'm not saying this might not just be the "weather".  For us to deny or ignore our cause in all this though is somewhat foolish.  It would take minimal effort for our species to recognize it's impact and start making changes for a cleaner and more sustainable future.  At the end of it all, if it really was just the "weather", so what?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Water vapor is the most effective "green house gas"  but we are made to believe that products of prosperity and an adequate food supply are the real culprit.  If we want to freeze, hungry in the dark than it is time to embrace the Global Warming Luddites.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Mtbailzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     This is true about water vapor. But reading a little more about it might help. Water vapor is a feedback from the over global warming. Hotter temps means more water vapor. This is why it's the number one greenhouse gas, but certainly not the most dangerous.

                     replyreport
   3. 62

      oz-vitezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Just read an interesting article that applies to this forum. Read here:
      
      CO2 emissions in U.S. drop to 20-year low
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … -year-low/
      
      Of course, my favorite part of the article:
      
      "Many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide..."
      
      Ah, the free market; like water seeking its own level, so the free market naturally shifts scarce resources which have alternate uses.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The Wash. Times is published by the Unification Church (AKA Moonies) and thus is not a reliable source.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The New York Times is published by...
            The Los Angeles Times is published by...
            NBC News is owned by...
            
            Interesting, the way to dismiss the content iin a news source is to contradict it without some kind of proof or evidence that demonstrates that the story is not accurate. By the way 49% of NBC is owned by a major beneficiary of massive "green economy" taxpayer scams.  Does that make NBC reliable?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               The NYT is owned by... wait for it... the New York Times Company.
               The LA Time is owned by The Tribune Co.
               NBC is owned by Comcast.
               
               Yes, the content in certain publications can be dismissed because of who owns it. In the WT case, they have not hidden their right-wing bias. Journalists with integrity strive for objectivity and fairness, and the WT demonstrates neither of those. I wouldn't trust it to report the weather fairly.
               
               In NBC's case, their news operation is fairly independent of their ownership, and has been since GE owned them, but that doesn't mean that they are immune from bias. Anything they report vis-a-vis electronic media should be viewed skeptically.
               
               In case you were wondering, my undergrad degree was in journalism. Want fries with that?

               replyreport
         2. 62

            oz-vitezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The original report is from the U.S. Energy Information Agency. The Washington Times simply printed an article on the agency's report; this is what normal folks call journalism.
            
            I know, I know, its too hard for some folks to use the Internet for research and actually broaden their horizon.

            replyreport
2. 65

   2uesdayposted 11 years ago

   Not sure but I guess it is the same people who will deny that the ice cap is melting faster than they thought it would?

   replyreport
3. 79

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   "They" will admit that we are in a cycle of natural heating only.
   That the warming is NOT manmade.
   Since it is a natural phenomenon, and we've had other periods in the earth's history where the earth got warm, it is not a problem.
   
   Don't you know that if you repeat something long enough and loud enough it becomes true?
   No?
   Well, then simply change the subject and try the same tactic.
   

   replyreport
   1. 59

      KK Trainorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I am one of those ignorant people who will still say that the warming is natural. It has happened in the past and it will happen again, but in between things will be cooler. That's the earth, mystery that she is! Do I believe scientists have the slightest inkling of how things really work over millions of years? Nope. They test and they guess and they hypothesize, but they don't know. It's summer time, it's supposed to be hot!  Just live life, stop worrying so much. It will be ok.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You can test global warming in a greenhouse... put heat reflective gasses in like CO2 and the temperature of the greenhouse will rise.
         
         The reason we know that the warming is not natural or at least that it is affected by our CO2 is that the upper atmosphere is the same temperature as it ever was from when we first started testing but the lower atmosphere and earth (affected by the greenhouse effect) are getting progressively hotter, add that to what we KNOW about heat reflection and frankly it doesn't even take a scientist to figure this one out.
         
         To summarize: We KNOW that CO2 causes a "greenhouse" effect
                                We KNOW that we are producing greenhouse gasses
                                We KNOW that the lower atmosphere is heating and is affected by the  aforementioned effect while the upper atmosphere is not.
         
         Thus we KNOW we are affecting climate, what remains to be discussed is how much, not if.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            No you can't.  You can test the effect of CO2 in a greenhouse.  The globe is not a greenhouse.  It is monumentally larger.  Greenhouses are closed and static systems.  Planets are not.  It is a miserable analog.

            replyreport
4. 59

   Stephen Govoniposted 11 years ago

   There is one more element that needs to be added to the discussion.  It's not a game changer, but the fact remains, as time goes on our sun will continue to get "hotter".
   
   The Earth sits in the perfect zone for life to exist.  The zone where we receive enough sunlight and warmth to sustain life. Gradually the sun digests it's own resources and grows towards red giant status, eventually consuming the earth.  Long before that though, it will become hot enough to push the earth to a temperature that makes life unsustainable.  We sit in a very delicate balance.
   
   Perhaps it's a small factor in our current situation.  The fact remains that CO2 is being added to the atmosphere and is creating a greenhouse effect.  Humans are exasperating our time frames for life on the planet by continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.  Geological evidence indicates in the past this has happened from natural causes such as volcanoes.  This is also evidenced by planets such as Venus, which has a noxious combination of green house gases and is extremely hot.
   
   Is there global warming? Of course!  Temperatures are higher than in our recorded past.  Entirely man made?  In large part, yes.  Part of the natural cycle?  Maybe.... Maybe not.  If we push the envelope too far the planet may not be able to properly cycle.
   
   We need to take responsibility for our part and stop worrying about where to place the blame.  Global warming is happening and it's time to make some hard choices as a species.  Let's take care of our only home.

   replyreport
5. 85

   grand old ladyposted 11 years ago

   Global warming is a reality we can't afford to ignore. There is no way all this industrialization and CO2 emissions could go on and on, as population grows and industry emissions increase, without ending up incurring consequence. We are dealing with that consequence now, and we really need to backtrack and aim for a return to the balance of our ecosystem.

   replyreport
6. 61

   Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

   
   
   

   replyreport
7. 80

   sherrituckposted 11 years ago

   This summer, we experienced record-setting heat in the south.  I remember walking outside one day and I could smell the earth burning.  I have never experienced a feeling quite like it.  Growing up, I enjoyed afternoon thunderstorms.  In many ways they were refreshing.  Now, they are something to fear.  We just don't know what is on the horizon.

   replyreport