Do you believe global warming is causing the extreme weather conditions we are experiencing in the U.S? Please watch this video and then comment.
The global average temperature sure is rising far faster than it naturally would. Take, for instance, the famous "hockey stick" graph of the Northern Hemisphere where, to be fair, most people live:
Where the warming should be a nice gradual hill (as would've started by the mid 2100s based on the curve), it instead becomes a sheer cliff face. The effects will be slow to take shape, but they'll suck hard for anyone who lives within 20 miles of the ocean.
As for people who are like, "But it's so cold right now! Global Warming must be a myth!", you can't dismiss 140 years of warming because "It's cold! Today! Where I live!" as that's just plain stupid.
I strongly suspect that if you go back a few million years you will find quite a few of those "sheer cliff faces" - all before man existed, let alone caused them.
So why do you say the "natural" thing is a gradual hill? And why do you say it is rising "far faster than it naturally would."?
The Earth does go through natural warm and cool periods, but when the temperature changes so radically and so quickly as it did several million years ago, it is often due to some kind of natural disaster (usually a volcano--it's always a frickin' volcano). The fact that one of those sheer-cliff rises is happening in the absence of a cataclysm (and suspiciously arising after industrialization) is telling.
Oh absolutely suspicious - to the point that I'm certain that man is affecting the climate. The question is "how much" and I've seen nothing to indicate that man is causing that cliff. Or that the cliff is anything more than a very temporary jog, over in just a few hundred years or so.
Because part of the key is that "often" due to natural disaster. It always is, of course, but we don't know what "natural disasters" might cause it. Certainly a volcano, or an asteroid but what about a solar flare? One from another star? An overabundance of cows or specific bacteria? The axis is changing; will a specific tilt give rise to a cliff? What about the magnetic poles - they're changing, too? Lots and lots of possibilities, and we just don't know enough yet to put the bulk of the blame on man.
Who could definitively prove anything a few million years ago so your suspicion will have to remain a suspicion as improvable or provable? What's the point then?
The graft clearly shows a steep rise around the industrial period in history from the 1800's on. Without anything definitive in your former statement and the obvious evidence of modern differences in the climate as shown in the graft should we just dismiss the phenomena? It doesn't prove anything as an answer to the question? Maybe we can hope and pray it will return to normal if not soon eventually as the answer?
I kind of like asking the questions just for information and I think I prefer Zelkiiro science a little more than yours.
Are you aware that correlation in time does NOT indicate a causal effect?
We've seen these steep cliffs before, without man causing them. Why is this one automatically man's fault? Because thousands of people get paid to say so?
I don't disagree with your questions. Just your dismissive attitude to find out. What is your explanation other than "It Happens"? That has no reassuring tone in it at all.
It is not intended to be reassuring. It is intended to indicate that the idea that man is causing global warming is unwarranted.
We hear that because man is here he is causing the earth to warm. We hear that because it warms now instead of tomorrow or yesterday that man is causing it. We hear from you that because it is a steep rise it is man's fault. We hear that because it has been rising for 100 years it is man's fault. Now we hear that because the steep rise began with the industrial revolution, before any but a tiny percentage of humanity was producing anything that might cause global warming, it is man's fault. Everything we hear is that man is causing it, but nowhere do we hear anything showing that nothing else is doing it. Just that man is, and without sufficient evidence to make the claim that the root cause is man.
There is little doubt that temperatures are rising. There is little doubt that man is a contributing factor - one campfire does that What is in great doubt is that man is the major contributor.
These assertions are not mine and the question still is being asked to what extent man is contributing to the warming. Your assertion is that it is not due to man in any major way. What is your proof? What actions should be taken to find out? Should we begin looking when the oceans start claiming shoreline? Or should we wait until huge storms wipe out thousands of people at a single occurrence? What prudence suggests is that we may want to move on the things science now says we can do and continue to investigate as to whether our actions make a difference and if something else is the culprit in the process and act on that when it is apparent. Your "do nothing" because a few scientist either misread or lied about a few growth rings on an ancient tree is just frivolous. Or is the expense just too much to consider possibly saving our environment?
You ask :"Your assertion is that it is not due to man in any major way. What is your proof?"
From the post you replied to: "What is in great doubt is that man is the major contributor.", which pretty much answered it before you asked it. Please do not put words in my mouth.
And you demonstrate the problem very well, asking what we should do to find out and then giving possibilities. Possibilities such as watching the ocean rise (proves man did it), seeing big storms kill people (proves man did it), and say we should move now, spending trillions of dollars because man did it.
Yes - the expense is too much, considering that there is little indication it will "save our environment". Especially considering that the best answer (nuclear) has been virtually shut down by the greenies crying global warming and making their living from it.
I have not put any words in your mouth. You just have no proof either way. The problem remains the same. What is causing the warming? You say it is a cyclical thing with no proof to accurately ascertain that it is so. With your assumption nothing should be done. Or are you saying it needs further study or your statement is proof enough to forget about it? My position is one of let us do what we can to cut back on the pollution that contributes to it while continuing studies as to their effectiveness and longevity. My position is one of erring on the side of caution while yours is one of erring on the side of catastrophe. My way harms no one, your way kills the earth. The funny thing about the expense is that the thousands of jobs that can be created to monitor and test as well as design are something the economy could really use now.
"You say it is a cyclical thing with no proof to accurately ascertain that it is so"
If you're not putting words in my mouth, please quote a post where I say that.
Your way harms no one? While energy costs skyrocket, along with everything else including food? And it hurts no one?
What dream world do YOU live in? The one where "thousands of jobs are created to monitor and test", producing nothing of value to the population but still paid for by that same population without costing anyone anything? You have a very odd idea of what hurts and what doesn't.
You said it was a cyclical thing when you said it has happened in the past. Or don't you understand the science by what you said? If something repeats itself with or without a know pattern it is cyclical. You really must read up on this as your position has been outlined many times by the far right in the past and their opposition to the science. And if you don't think it is a far right stand then you have proven you are not understanding the two theories. Might I add there is no basis to support that theory at all.
Energy costs skyrocketing has nothing to do with current supply or the science of extracting more oil from the earth. Or don't you get the oil companies program? They are sticking it to us before alternative energy sources can be developed. Mind you they are invested heavily in those sciences they still wish to make the record profits while receiving subsidies and research grants from the government.
As far as a dream world I have at least an understanding of the topic while you seem to have a denial of everything that makes sense. If you wish to call it a dream world that's okay but it beats the nightmare your attitude sets us all up for by ignoring it.
As far as the costs can you estimate what that can be if the science is right and we ignore it?
Sorry - I misunderstood. Of course there have been warm and cold periods, up to and including snowball earth. I thought you were claiming that I said this is one of those cycles, without intervention from man, and I have never insinuated that. That it is warming, again, is virtually undeniable - it's just the why that isn't well known yet.
Skyrocketing energy costs come from not burning fossil fuels and trying to make do with solar, wave, wind, and all the other sources. They are ALL considerably more expensive (except dams, and they have to go because of the salmon, anyway). Or don't you get that program - the solar people want your money to build worthless solar plants, the wind people want your money to build worthless wind farms, etc.? They're sticking it to us as fast as their greedy little hands can move, all helped by the green movement screaming that fossil fuels are warming the earth and we're all gonna die next year if we don't stop burning them.
Well, let me clue you - we're all gonna die right now if we quit burning fossil fuels. Our life depends on oil, gas, coal, etc.
You are a bit behind on your information. Because of recent science some countries who do not subsidize their private sector are proving that wind and solar energy does indeed work contrary to your statement. Cost for fossil fuels continues to rise where as solar and wind energy has a fixed rate of zero. It is all around us and free to exploit without polluting. Within a couple of years the technology will become cheaper than burning fossil fuels. But I guess the short term expense of switching over more towards wind and solar is not worth it. You should read these if you don't believe me.
http://meic.org/issues/montana-clean-en … sil-fuels/
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/graph-o … ower-10301
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0 … ht-behind/
Yes we are all going to die but should we bring it about sooner for our children?
LOL What a crock!
There are wind farms all around the area I live in, and there are even a few "back in the woods" locations relying on solar cells for power. Even a commercial swimming pool, with all the water pumps and such.
And none of it is free, none of it provides power as cheap as oil and none of it is worth a nickel when the wind doesn't blow or at night. Sure it will become cheaper - someday! We've been hearing for over a decade it would match oil any day now, but it just gets further and further away.
If it's free to exploit, I presume you have a megawatt of solar cells and another in a windmill. What, you don't have that? It costs too much to build, you say? How about that - guess it isn't free to exploit, is it?
Short term expense - you have to know the construction is just the beginning of such schemes. It's really difficult to store electricity, but all those require just that, and in amounts that are near unbelievable. And when you want to consider those trillions upon trillions of "short term expense", what will you give up for it? Health care? Sewage or water treatment plants? Roads for a decade or so? How many homes will you not build to pay for just a couple of windmills, out of the millions needed?
How many people will you kill, spending all the money on a bunch of windmills that won't refrigerate a single vial of penicillin when the wind dies? How many megawatts of solar plants will you build that won't run a single operating room light at night?
You want real power, cheap and free of pollution? Put your money into fusion, into the technology of the sun and the universe.
I would love to know where all the money will come from.
The UK government collect huge amounts of tax on fossil fuels, over 80% of the price of petrol or diesel is taxation, if we all suddenly turn to green energy where will the government get their taxes from?
From your reaction you did not read anything I sent you. That's okay! You and many others just are looking for the short term "leave me and my opinions alone". Never mind the facts as you seem to be of the "all or nothing" way of looking at issues. I thought there was a glimmer of hope for you but you seem to just want to be confrontational and bully your opinion, mind you I said OPINION through.
You really must practice your reading comprehension skills as I did not state it was free. I merely stated that the raw materials (sun and wind) were free. You cannot deny that but the technology is the expense that is focused on and obviously your point even if I had to work it out for you. Read the article and you might get a grip on the science.
You remind me of the guy who goes to the doctor for an exam. When the doctor says you need a screening for whatever he suspects may hurt you, you play it off as something that has never occurred before. Therefore there is no need for the expense and discomfort of finding out.
Your reaction as answered by "what a crock" clearly defines your knowledge in the area and I wish you well to wallow in your ignorance of the issue.
Perhaps you should practice your typing "comprehension skills" instead. "Cost for fossil fuels continues to rise where as solar and wind energy has a fixed rate of zero." does not mean that the cost for solar energy costs money; "zero" usually means "free".
Absolutely. I will wallow in my ignorance and you can wallow in your spin and fraud. Like "solar energy has a fixed rate (cost) of zero" but is not free. Oh, wait - we'll conveniently forget about the fraud, won't we? Those "scientists" and "researchers" doctoring their results are to be ignored, even when we find more and more of them all the time.
But, I guess to those that want to believe that's OK. Take in the spin, believe or ignore the fraud, pretend the huge amounts of money being spent (that have far better use) for nothing are good for us. It feels good to go green, doesn't it?!
Spin it however you wish. As usual without any investigation on your part you spin it however you think to prove the improvable without any facts.
At this point I feel the only thing we can do is hope our prospective positions see the light of day and that the best thing comes out in the end. To converse any more would deteriorate into some name calling and hard feelings as reason has left this debate. I wish you well and hope the best for you and your family.
To acknowledge humanity's influence on global warming would bolster the notion that action should be taken: ideas generated, plans made, people doing something. Can't have that now, can we? Better to sit back and nitpick. It's SO much easier, requires no money or risk, and generates no responsibility or blame.
But they are doing something, they are taxing us all and spending it on nothing to do with plans to combat climate change, maybe they are hoping they can tax us off the roads, or freeze us in our homes.
The government have no plans (any government), have they reduced their own carbon footprints or do they still just wage war on the taxpayer?
Many governments economies are based on fossil fuels why would they want to restrict their own economy?
The only plan I can see they have is to tell us all we dunnit and to tax us all for doing it.
"Many governments economies are based on fossil fuels"
I would say that every first world countries economy is based on fossil fuels. Not necessarily the sale of it, but based on it. Remove fossil fuels from any such country and watch what happens!
But they spent our tax money, to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, on a plant to make solar cells not too far from me. And huge energy bills, too - all paid for by the citizenry because not a single panel was ever built. The plant was even completely finished before the Chinese company taking all the money backed out and left owing everybody in sight.
Good plan then!
They haven't got an idea of how to deal with what's going on with the climate.
I was reading something earlier about scientists worrying about the lack of activity from the sun, maybe the sun has got fed up with the political bullsh*t as well.
if you go to 20 doctors and they all say that they strongly suspect that you have cancer, then there is a good chance you have cancer, but not an absolute chance. The body is complex and our understanding imperfect, so they may be wrong, yet most reasonable people would without hesitation accept the expert consensus about their condition. Doing otherwise is foolish.
Where it gets messy is with solutions proffered by third parties (such as politicians), which at times can be like a shady character coming up to you and saying "give me all your money and I'll give you a magic brew that will cure your cancer". We can and should be wary about solutions offered and solutions enacted, especially if they are the product of non-experts or people who have alternative agendas.
But third party solutions have nothing to do with the science of the problem. The science is clear and equivalent to 20 doctors telling you that you have cancer and ignoring it is equivalently foolish.
Sure. And if you go to 20 doctors and they all tell you it isn't cancer do you accept that? Because you can find not 20, but 100+ scientists that will tell you it is absolutely man caused and another 100+ that will tell you either it isn't rising at all (long term) or that man is a very minor contributor.
So you take the word of that politician that wants your money, I guess. Although when people start saying "the science is clear" as if they haven't heard the naysayers or as if using the word "science" makes it all true somehow, well, I kind of take it with a grain of salt. Because there IS reputable people on both sides. Plus quite a few total frauds on the "man is doing it" side. Haven't heard of any on the naysayer side (complete and total, proven, liars and frauds), have you?
I pretty much specifically said NOT to trust the politician who wants your money, so I am not sure who you are talking to. I don't know a single legitimate denier. Defining legitimate to be someone who has scientific training in the field of climate science, works in the field, and contributes peer reviewed work to the body of knowledge. There are some legitimate strong skeptics, but not too many, and skeptics are not deniers (technically, all scientists are skeptics). I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing claims by deniers and have yet to find one that would really pass 8th grade science. If that is good enough for you, than that is your business. As it is, almost every single scientific body on the planet agrees, or partially agrees with the consensus, and again, I know of none who flat out deny it.
For the more visually oriented, here is what consensus looks like:
In case it is hard to read it says: "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012: 24 reject global warming". http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent- … -2013.html
I know you said not to listen to politicians. I just assume you did because the field is balanced.
Of course if you decide that anyone disagreeing with the concept that man is solely responsible for heating the globe up is not "legitimate" it becomes easier to make a decision, doesn't it?
Does it make it easier to provide pictures like that when you change the subject from man made global warming to global warming? It actually is difficult to find very many that think the globe is not warming, but to put the cause to man is a little different story.
I did provide a definition of legitimate and it had nothing to do with rejecting/not rejecting. I think it is a fair definition, and in evaluating experts, we do need some criteria. I evaluate anyone the same way (which is why I don't pay attention to someone like Al Gore). That, of course, doesn't mean it is the only criteria to use or anyone else has to use it. I was merely putting forward my rationale.
And I imagine the graphic said "global warming" rather than "man-made global warming" because that is what the term, to most, now means. It doesn't really need to be said. Articles with "explicit rejections of human-caused global warming" is what the study was looking for (and only found 24).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/a … consensus/
Government pays for climate science study.
Government then taxes on the findings of climate science study.
Government then doesn't do anything about the findings of climate change study.
Were all going to die.
Terrible thought isn't it! 110 years from now, every person who is alive today will be dead! And not one thing any of us here can do about it...... Go pray that it won't happen!
You two can sit back and do nothing while the world moves forward. Don't worry, we've figured you out. The problem solvers are using science of all types to reduce our impact on the environment in general and global climate change in particular. Yes, it is happening without you. Sure, we'll listen to you because once in awhile you have a valid criticism to be addressed. Eventually, though, we move forward and move on without you. That is how progress happens, imperfect as it might be.
Yeah - my local power company is fighting that "forward" motion as the greenies get laws passed to benefit them at the cost of everyone else. As our power rates skyrocket to build wind farms that supply nothing but higher prices (and profits to the greenies) and the continued need for more power plants. As our taxes go up to help build plants to build solar cells that never open. We sure are going forward, right enough. Would that you can move right on without me and leave me alone with my cheap power in the limited amounts I use.
I will stand up and take notice when the government actually put a plan into action. Reducing carbon emissions and then selling the savings to the polluters is not actually doing anything.
If humans are causing climate change why hasn't one government proposed population control?
I have a particular distrust of governments who tax us on the say of climate scientist who are in the pay of the very governments.
There is climate change and possibly humans have added to its effects but don't tell me the government is trying to slow it or even change it's outcome because it's not, it's just another funding stream for them.
Our city has implemented the electric car scheme with charging points around the city, what they don't tell you is that it isn't free and that most of the charging points are in some of the councils most expensive car parks ( how convenient ). Green is a very good moneymaker at the moment an will continue to be so for the government while they continue to follow their non existent plan.
Every scheme I've seen depends on someone other than the one proposing it to make the sacrifices or pay the bill, and benefits someone one other than me. The maker of the power plant, the government collect more taxes, the polluter buying credits.
You're absolutely right - green is a money-maker at the moment. When it falls from that exalted tower it will also fall from government's graces and either survive on it's own without all the hoorah and subsidies or die off. Personally, my bet is on surviving, but not in the form it is now.
by sannyasinman 10 years ago
Online news service promotes false climate change study http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … CMP=twt_fd
by ThunderKeys 9 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
by mbuggieh 6 years ago
About 97% of all scientists accept a simple fact: Human activity on the planet Earth is contributing to global climate change. And as NOAA's National Climatic Data Center indicates: "It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change....
by sannyasinman 10 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
by Will Apse 8 years ago
The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.They have respect for science, though, and decided to partly fund a new study at Berkeley run by a climate skeptic Professor,...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|