Could someone who is smarter than me, and better at finding good/reliable information (maybe you've done research on this) point me to some good information on why Global Warming/Climate Change (or whatever it's being called now) is NOT a hoax (i.e. it's true). This is not for homework, but from everything I've read it makes perfect sense to me that Global Warming/Climate Change is true, and I'd like to be able to argue the point more effectively against people who don't think it is true.
I've looked up some of the information, but most of what I find (beyond what I already know) is way too technical for me to understand. So, if someone could help me out with this, that'd be awesome.
The reason I ask is that a friend posted a blog on FB (which I shouldn't really care about, but he's got the Glen Beck attitude towards everything, which pisses me off in most cases) bashing global warming, claiming the 2 degree increase is nothing, and that the intensity of the sun has increased and that's why it's getting warmer, blah blah. I posted some charts from NASA that are pretty clear cut, but I figure there has to be information out there that I am not finding, other than Wiki...
People who argue that it is not man made are idiots. Not because of that idea but because it doesn't even matter. The globe is warming either way, and pollution is bad.
That article posted above mentioned that (microscopic) animals can cause climate change so how hard is that to believe that almost 7 billion humans can change the atmosphere? I mean we change the land, the ocean, and everything else why would the air be any different?
Really most contrarians, and in fact most people, will not be swayed by data. People are not persuaded when they're told that outright that their data is wrong, or that their beliefs are wrong (in this case, that anthropogenic global warming is true). All I can recommend is dissecting his complaints and showing why they simply don't make sense.
I also noticed many contrarians will label anthropogenic global warming as a conspiracy-like mechanism for governments to control people. This report may speak to how they're really on the short end of the conspiracy stick:
On October 08 2009 07:54 CharlieMurphy wrote: People who argue that it is not man made are idiots. Not because of that idea but because it doesn't even matter. The globe is warming either way, and pollution is bad.
That article posted above mentioned that (microscopic) animals can cause climate change so how hard is that to believe that almost 7 billion humans can change the atmosphere? I mean we change the land, the ocean, and everything else why would the air be any different?
It is comments like this that fuel the skepticism.
Unqualified statements, instant assumptions and illogical analogies all in one.
---
News scientist is good. Keep looking, keep up to date and try to verify the sources. Give appropriate amount of trust into the source you read it from. Keep a scientific mind about your head. And please, PLEASE put on your best bullshit filter when reading articles and information.
Consider also, what are the real solutions, and what the bullshit solutions (paying it off by planting trees? you got to be kidding me...) ---
My personal view has changed from "unsure" to "probably" over the last 5-9 years, flittering back and forth with new evidence as it comes along
It is a tough subject to research as an individual. And mainly, this is because you DO have to consider the other point of view, as origional skeptecism was founded early on shaky/contradictory evidence. Note how this has changed drastically over the course of 15 years with new research.
On October 08 2009 08:48 SagaZ wrote: The movie "an uncovenient truth" is exactly what you're looking for.
It's very well explained and even funny at some parts.
An unconvenient truth is a bunch of sensationalistic crap. It's based on drawing out people's emotions rather than hard scientific fact.
Al Gore, on record, said that Greenland will melt in the next 50 years (he said that in 2005 i think). I can't take anything he says seriously after that.
I would recommend them just look up the page on global warming controversy. Most of the myths and arguments against "climate change" are given proper perspective there, which is kind of funny.
There is no question that the world is warming. However, I think what should be debated is how much damage global warming will actually do, and the root causes of the warming. Calling it the "greatest threat to humanity today" is a load of bullshit. Nuclear war remains that greatest threat. However, a SWIFTLY (climate has ALWAYS changed) changing climate will certainly cause significant ecological and economical damage.
On October 08 2009 08:48 SagaZ wrote: The movie "an uncovenient truth" is exactly what you're looking for.
It's very well explained and even funny at some parts.
the problem with the inconvenient truth is that now you have people with a political agenda behind it.
While it's pretty obvious that there's global warming to some extent, I sincerely doubt that soon polar bears will become extinct, people will die in hoards, and we'll be in a Waterworld-type scneario. However, I do believe that it is causing damage to some speciies that are already under other human pressure and could collapse.
Again, however, I don't think that having governments (whom contributed substantially through production of war machines and the like) will do anything that will help to reduce global warming. I don't know what a better solution would be, but I'm philosophically disinclined to have politicians doing things about science.
Also, I think its always best to keep things in perspective. At the end of the Paleozic era, around 250 million years ago, there was a mass extinction that killed over 95% of the world's species. The world didn't collapse after that extinction; instead, the dinosaurs thrived. Just because we lose a couple species doesn't mean the entire world ecosystem will suddenly collapse.
I guess my point is that it is not our duty to protect every species that walks the earth. Evolution means that species must adapt to their environments. Climate change happens all the time. Glaciers melt (ice age); species go extinct. Wooly mammoths and sabre-toothed cats are no longer around. We do not have some "mandate" to halt the evolutionary process.
Also, the world at times has been much warmer in the past.
Edit: The one thing I really don't like about environmentalism is the amount of emotion attached to it, on both sides of the subject. Never before have I seen science turned into such an angry, heated debate where both sides employ such vasts amounts of pseudoscience and sensationalism to prove their points (perhaps once during the AC vs DC debate between Edison and Westinghouse). Glenn Beck and his angry rants, environmentalists and their ridiculous preaching without all the proper facts. I say leave the research to scientists and stop debating so much about things you (not talking to you specifically ) don't know anything about. It's like arguing about string theory when you've only taken high school physics.
On October 08 2009 09:28 Try wrote: Also, the world at times has been much warmer in the past.
No offense, but it hasn't. The newscientist article (and others) debunked it.
It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today, as well as much colder periods. In some cases the main factors that caused these past warm periods - and the ebb and flow of ice ages over recent millennia - are well understood, though not in all. Many of the details remain unknown.
P.S. I appreciate the civility. Usually any discussion about climate change always results in a flame war.
On October 08 2009 09:28 Try wrote: Just because we lose a couple species doesn't mean the entire world ecosystem will suddenly collapse.
Laugh out loud. I think we stand to lose far more than that, but I think you have the right sentiments in your post. My own contribution is that you should just trust the consensus among smart people. It sounds like a feeble attempt to get at the truth, but considering that these smart people have spent their lives studying theories you'll never begin grasping, the closest you'll get to truth is arguing ridiculously dumb-downed ideas on forums like teamliquid. In many matters of public debate, like politics, public ethics and even to some extent economics, we as the laymen can join in the debate and make fairly educated remarks. But when it comes to science, you are really making a mockery of the whole process when you try and find flaws in arguments that are informed by years of research and even genius. There is no reason the public should have serious debates about science. You don't see public debate about quantum chromodynamics, so why about climate change? The mathematics and models are just as complicated. One has far more implications for the immediate future of mankind, but surely that's all the more reason to the question to those who know what they're talking about.
I guess my point is that it is not our duty to protect every species that walks the earth. Evolution means that species must adapt to their environments. Climate change happens all the time. Glaciers melt (ice age); species go extinct. Wooly mammoths and sabre-toothed cats are no longer around. We do not have some "mandate" to halt the evolutionary process.
That's not the problem at all though. The problem is that rising ocean levels and prolonged droughts will displace millions of people and leave many more in hunger and poverty in the poorest places in the world. I agree that we do not have a mandate to try and preserve every species that exist today, but we need to be a lot more conscious about using fossil fuels that have accumulated over millions of years - in a matter of decades.
However I would also like to see more science behind the modeling - more than just PPM levels of CO2, but how they actually affect average global temperature. We need more accurate models before we develop solutions.
Try I'd like to point out that any system will at least severely contract, which is one meaning of collapse, with the complete removal of 95% of its elements. We definitely owe nothing to other species, but we also don't stand to gain anything from a mass extinction.
Complete ignorance of the issue by all parties not specialized in relevant research also does nothing to help society. Politicization of the issue is necessary because each side has something crucial at stake, at least in their minds: humanity's survival and humanity's standards of living. Clearly this isn't optimal as it contributes to rampant misinformation, but that does not imply that discussion is irrelevant or counterproductive. Communication's primary purpose is the dissemination of information. Much can make it fail, but that is no reason to refrain as a rule. (Of course, if a discussion has or will imminently fail, it is useless to participate.)
The question isn't whether or not Global Warming happens or not--it does--but rather, should be does it matter? Somebody else pointed it out, but why do we have to have a responsibility to save every species on the planet? We ARE part of nature, so what we do is natural. We come from billions of years of evolution, and billions of years of evolution has told us, at this point, that what we do is OK. That being said, the green movement might be natural whiplash to centuries of industrialization.
A second point, from the economics standpoint, is about the scarcity of resources. If everything is self sustaining, what resources are we going to compete over? How is society going to grow?
The gases in our atmosphere form a kind of insulation. The long waves of the sun's energy can easily pass through the gases and heat up the earth. Because the earth has temperature, it emits radiation (as all things with heat do); however, the radiation is short waved, which largely gets reflected by the gases. When you have a system with energy in > energy out, it heats up. Equilibrium will occur when the earth heats up enough that, despite only a percentage of the radiation getting out, it is emitting enough radiation to balance the energy coming in. Because we have more gases doing this (CO2, CFCs, etc. etc) (you can check the research, we can tangibly measure that the majority of greenhouse gases are up), we are reflecting more energy inwards. That means Ein > Eout. That means there are only two possible outcomes: 1. Earth heats up 2. Earth absorbs (transfers) energy - ie a material absorbs energy and undergoes a state change (ice -> water).
So global warming (although in scenario 2 nothing is actually warming so let's calling it "energy storage") is happening. It's undeniable. What is left to happen is whether we should care (it might actually be adventageous) or whether we were the major cause of it.
It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today, as well as much colder periods. In some cases the main factors that caused these past warm periods - and the ebb and flow of ice ages over recent millennia - are well understood, though not in all. Many of the details remain unknown.
P.S. I appreciate the civility. Usually any discussion about climate change always results in a flame war.
My point was that you said it was much warmer in the past. I never said it wasn't warmer, period. Could you cite a time where it was much warmer(preferably supported by peer-review).
Hi, I've been reading up on global warming myself, and I am not a big fan of it. Right now, I'm thinking the Earth is just going through a phase. I've read that the Earth had ten times the Carbon level...two-thousand years ago? (Sorry, forgot source) Also, what's up with the water rising material? Where's all the water coming from? The ice caps? Well... if that's the case, think about this: If you have a cup of water, and you put ice in it then you let it stand until all the ice has melted, did the water level rise?
I'm still in the dark, so please enlighten me. I really would like to hear some good arguments as to why my opinions aren't exactly true.
First, @ the above post, think about this: The water levels will rise a great deal when ice shelves break off of land masses and displace water. Also a considerable amount of ice that is above sea level. Using your analogy, think of it as holding the ice above the water and letting it melt. Will the water rise?
The following does not answer your question as such, be warned:
People who say global warming is a hoax are full of it. In Colorado there is visible evidence of global warming. There is a beetle that kills pine trees, only lodgepoles I believe, that has been running rampant the past several years. The explanation of their proliferation is that they were previously killed annually by cold winter temperatures. Warming winters, or more accurately less consistently cold winters, are denying the main check on their population and the result is dramatic. There are entire mountains, whole clusters and ridges of them, that are brown at a distance. I was backpacking in the Rockies around a month ago and walked through forests of dead pine trees still standing.
These videos are part of an incredibly long video project on youtube titled "How It All Ends" and these three are all about global warming/global climate change. I haven't gone through and watched all of the videos in the series, but from what I've seen, the whole series could be worth watching.
On October 08 2009 09:28 Try wrote: Just because we lose a couple species doesn't mean the entire world ecosystem will suddenly collapse.
Laugh out loud. I think we stand to lose far more than that, but I think you have the right sentiments in your post. My own contribution is that you should just trust the consensus among smart people. It sounds like a feeble attempt to get at the truth, but considering that these smart people have spent their lives studying theories you'll never begin grasping, the closest you'll get to truth is arguing ridiculously dumb-downed ideas on forums like teamliquid. In many matters of public debate, like politics, public ethics and even to some extent economics, we as the laymen can join in the debate and make fairly educated remarks. But when it comes to science, you are really making a mockery of the whole process when you try and find flaws in arguments that are informed by years of research and even genius. There is no reason the public should have serious debates about science. You don't see public debate about quantum chromodynamics, so why about climate change? The mathematics and models are just as complicated. One has far more implications for the immediate future of mankind, but surely that's all the more reason to the question to those who know what they're talking about.
I actually agree with this 100% and it really pisses me off that people like my friend (and Glen Beck and those like him) constantly cry about what people much, MUCH smarter than ANY of us are telling us. There are thousands of scientists (I'm sure) that have studied this stuff without grants from the government. My geology professor was ridiculously educated on earth science, without ever having gotten a government grant to do his research, and he said this stuff was true (the guy did all sorts of stuff, I don't know where to begin with his qualifications)... while I don't necessarily think that being educated means you're 100% correct all the time, in this particular case (and a couple others), I'll just take their word for it.
I don't remember which mass extinction it was, but there were a lot of volcanoes erupting, creating a ton of carbon in the air, and raising the earth's temperature.... isn't that EXACTLY what's happening now? Why should we think that because we humans have studied this stuff that we're somehow going to escape the consequences of what we're doing?
On October 08 2009 13:36 Physician wrote: I got just the thing for you. I warn you it makes arguing with etards boring, since all u have to do is copy-paste & own.
On October 08 2009 09:28 Try wrote: Just because we lose a couple species doesn't mean the entire world ecosystem will suddenly collapse.
Laugh out loud. I think we stand to lose far more than that, but I think you have the right sentiments in your post. My own contribution is that you should just trust the consensus among smart people. It sounds like a feeble attempt to get at the truth, but considering that these smart people have spent their lives studying theories you'll never begin grasping, the closest you'll get to truth is arguing ridiculously dumb-downed ideas on forums like teamliquid. In many matters of public debate, like politics, public ethics and even to some extent economics, we as the laymen can join in the debate and make fairly educated remarks. But when it comes to science, you are really making a mockery of the whole process when you try and find flaws in arguments that are informed by years of research and even genius. There is no reason the public should have serious debates about science. You don't see public debate about quantum chromodynamics, so why about climate change? The mathematics and models are just as complicated. One has far more implications for the immediate future of mankind, but surely that's all the more reason to the question to those who know what they're talking about.
I actually agree with this 100% and it really pisses me off that people like my friend (and Glen Beck and those like him) constantly cry about what people much, MUCH smarter than ANY of us are telling us. There are thousands of scientists (I'm sure) that have studied this stuff without grants from the government. My geology professor was ridiculously educated on earth science, without ever having gotten a government grant to do his research, and he said this stuff was true (the guy did all sorts of stuff, I don't know where to begin with his qualifications)... while I don't necessarily think that being educated means you're 100% correct all the time, in this particular case (and a couple others), I'll just take their word for it.
I don't remember which mass extinction it was, but there were a lot of volcanoes erupting, creating a ton of carbon in the air, and raising the earth's temperature.... isn't that EXACTLY what's happening now? Why should we think that because we humans have studied this stuff that we're somehow going to escape the consequences of what we're doing?
Although part of me wants to shout "Logical flaw! Argument from authority!", in this instance I am inclined to agree. The modern system of scientific peer review is by no means perfect. However, the probability of it reaching the right answer is unimaginably higher than the probability of a random layman who muses about the issue after reading a few articles getting the right answer to that same problem.
On October 08 2009 08:48 SagaZ wrote: The movie "an uncovenient truth" is exactly what you're looking for.
It's very well explained and even funny at some parts.
The movie is "An Inconvenient Truth" and it's actually not very truthful. That particular model has not been holding up against recent data. I.e. it has no predictive capacity.
Global warming isn't exactly what the press would leave you to believe and there is a lot we don't know and are still trying to discover. There are many different theories that attempt to explain it, not just one, which is the source for all of the actual debate within the scientific community. That is to say, because our data sample is so fucking pathetically small, we cannot honestly even say beyond any shadow of a doubt what our impact has been. It is widely believed that we have caused the majority of the global heating over the last century and it is widely believed that carbon pollution is one of the major, if not the major, causes.
However, models that have attempted to explain global warming based on air pollution data alone have not been yielding accurate predictions. With the continuing economic growth of the developing world there have been tremendous increases in carbon pollution over the past decade, but global temperatures actually peaked in 1998.
Note that this does not mean that global warming is "all wrong." It means that there are still factors we do not understand. For instance, at the bottom of the ocean are chemosynthetic lifeforms that eat methane coming up out of the earth -- enough methane to superheat our planet in a very short timeframe (geologically speaking). Methane is a greenhouse gas that has 10000 times the global warming potential of CO2 on a molecule-to-molecule level. Recent environmental research has been attempting to understand the role methane plays in global temperatures, and in particular how much of it is due to our agriculture. However we have basically no idea what role the chemosynthetic lifeforms play in year-to-year temperature shifts.
We also have basically no clue what kind of changes there have been in solar output if you go back more than about 40 years. We like to pretend it's always been constant, but that is not the case.
Edit: In particular, why was the earth warmer when the Vikings sailed to Greenland than it is today? Why was the earth far cooler 20000 years ago than it is today? There are theories, but we still know oh so little.
There are also fluctuations in the earth's motion that we've only recently started fully understanding.
When it comes to global warming, you really have to ignore most of the media talk. Most of it is just an obfuscation in an attempt to be sensational. It's either "we're all gonna die a week from tomorrow" (the more common media theme) or it's "global warming doesn't exist."
As a society, what we need to do to protect our world is not to go nuts over one kind of pollution or another, but to limit our impact on the environment in general. Limit deforestation, don't over-fish the waters, don't dump toxic waste in the oceans and act like it's been safely disposed of, force companies that outsource industry to the developing world to adhere to the environmental standards of the developed world (which they do not), etc. My greatest concern with global warming is that with the media's presentation of it, we will all focus our efforts solely on CO2 and forget about other pollutants, leaving the world a worse place for our children.
Though I am not anti-global warming, the way the media pictures it makes me jump into the opposite direction. It's the adversity I have for popular reporting and big headlines.
Even scientists themselves have often a hard time making sure a correct picture with the right nuances will be presented in a newspaper. The new scientist article seems to be an excellent objective overview though so it'll be worth a try.
Also the solution to global warming is not clear either. As for an example there was the general thought that dust in the atmosphere caused warming, but then it appears that plants grow significantly faster in a dusty atmosphere, which in turn is considered positive against global warming. (Got this from a popular science mag)
On October 08 2009 07:54 CharlieMurphy wrote: People who argue that it is not man made are idiots. Not because of that idea but because it doesn't even matter. The globe is warming either way, and pollution is bad.
That article posted above mentioned that (microscopic) animals can cause climate change so how hard is that to believe that almost 7 billion humans can change the atmosphere? I mean we change the land, the ocean, and everything else why would the air be any different?
It is comments like this that fuel the skepticism.
Unqualified statements, instant assumptions and illogical analogies all in one.
Welcome to Team Liquid. This is CharlieMurphy. You have fallen prey to his trap.
Wow, I'm glad people posted these links and more so that people so carefully constructed the arguments in these links.
I'd make the unscientific argument that the creators of south park went from saying there's absolutely no scientific proof whatsoever of global warming to simply attacking Al Gore as chasing ManBearPig.
It is idiots like al gore that start most of the skeptecism in the first place
You watch a movie like his, smell a ton of bullshit, and it plants the seed of doubt in your mind.
Seriously guys, don't argue it here, some of the links (especially the newscientist ones) are extremely well informed and published by reputable and trustworthy (take that how you wish) sources. ---
Some of the climate change claims are bullshit, some are extremely true, some of it is overhyped and some of it is underhyped and more pressing than first realised.
It is almost in a way, worthless posting an opinion, as raising public knowledge is a step already taken.
I PERSONALLY believe (pinch of salt) climate change is simply part of the grander and much more immediate problem of the energy and efficiency crisis, which is something worth researching a solution to as a priority.
On October 08 2009 19:23 Foucault wrote: I don't think it's true, it's a natural fluctuation in climate
I would definately want to see more independent researchers to studies on this
In the first link posted, they claimed that about 97.2% of active climatologists were in full support of man-caused climate change, and much of the remaining 2.8% worked within the petroleum industry. I think rather than look for 'more independent research' you should take a closer look at the current research.
Ok, one issue that should be talked about is how it's politically correct to assume that global warming is true. Ever since Al Gore released his movie about global warming and the debate grew enourmous it's just not "okay" to think that global warming isn't mainly man-made.
The issue is with the researchers and the fact that everyone assumes that global warming is a fact even before they start researching, which makes the research done HUGELY biased. This is a huge issue imo, because the general politically correct opinion leaves no room for arguments and you find people getting angry and upset when you question this. WTF
And about science being "trustworthy"; usually you find people who have no idea how science works and mainly replace god by science, saying this. Science is in many cases very trustworthy, but science isn't objective unless you're calculating your height or weight. When it comes to more complicated matters, it's about what you look at, HOW you look at it and what conclusions you draw from what you observe. Science isn't as objective as people seem to think, nor is it "right" most of the time. In fact it's very subjective, which of course often shows when scientists have different viewpoints on many issues.
Oh and global warming is a fact obviously but I think it's mainly because of climate fluctuations, and mankind has probably done some damage as well but not this noticeable.
Foucault, I'm willing to bet that like 99% of the posters here you haven't actually read a single scientific paper from a respectable journal like Nature from start to finish. If you did you would know that scientists in general aren't very prone to drawing conclusions like "we have shown that the CO2 ppm has increased 20% in the last 50 years, therefore global warming is 100% true". In reality they have whole sections describing the limitations of their particular studies.
But it's excusable since your ignorance doesn't actually affect anything, while the ignorance of congressmen that defend big oil interests hurts the entire planet.
On October 08 2009 20:49 Foucault wrote: Ok, one issue that should be talked about is how it's politically correct to assume that global warming is true. Ever since Al Gore released his movie about global warming and the debate grew enourmous it's just not "okay" to think that global warming isn't mainly man-made.
The issue is with the researchers and the fact that everyone assumes that global warming is a fact even before they start researching, which makes the research done HUGELY biased. This is a huge issue imo, because the general politically correct opinion leaves no room for arguments and you find people getting angry and upset when you question this. WTF
And about science being "trustworthy"; usually you find people who have no idea how science works and mainly replace god by science, saying this. Science is in many cases very trustworthy, but science isn't objective unless you're calculating your height or weight. When it comes to more complicated matters, it's about what you look at, HOW you look at it and what conclusions you draw from what you observe. Science isn't as objective as people seem to think, nor is it "right" most of the time. In fact it's very subjective, which of course often shows when scientists have different viewpoints on many issues.
Oh and global warming is a fact obviously but I think it's mainly because of climate fluctuations, and mankind has probably done some damage as well but not this noticeable.
This issue (global warming/climate change) at its core (scientific research/publication) is no different than lots of other fields of study currently being pursued by researchers. The only difference is how non-scientists are reactiong to it. Most of the complaints about global warming are debuncted simply by comparing them to a analogue complaints in other fields of research. Also, I encourage you to read that link in post 3 or 42 of the thread carefully before publicizing your opinions about how humans have not had a major impact (for your benifit, not ours).
On October 08 2009 20:49 Foucault wrote: Ok, one issue that should be talked about is how it's politically correct to assume that global warming is true. Ever since Al Gore released his movie about global warming and the debate grew enourmous it's just not "okay" to think that global warming isn't mainly man-made.
The issue is with the researchers and the fact that everyone assumes that global warming is a fact even before they start researching, which makes the research done HUGELY biased. This is a huge issue imo, because the general politically correct opinion leaves no room for arguments and you find people getting angry and upset when you question this. WTF
And about science being "trustworthy"; usually you find people who have no idea how science works and mainly replace god by science, saying this. Science is in many cases very trustworthy, but science isn't objective unless you're calculating your height or weight. When it comes to more complicated matters, it's about what you look at, HOW you look at it and what conclusions you draw from what you observe. Science isn't as objective as people seem to think, nor is it "right" most of the time. In fact it's very subjective, which of course often shows when scientists have different viewpoints on many issues.
Oh and global warming is a fact obviously but I think it's mainly because of climate fluctuations, and mankind has probably done some damage as well but not this noticeable.
This issue (global warming/climate change) at its core (scientific research/publication) is no different than lots of other fields of study currently being pursued by researchers. The only difference is how non-scientists are reactiong to it. Most of the complaints about global warming are debuncted simply by comparing them to a analogue complaints in other fields of research. Also, I encourage you to read that link in post 3 or 42 of the thread carefully before publicizing your opinions about how humans have not had a major impact (for your benifit, not ours).
Sure I'll read it, but I want to know who I'm reading and who funds his studies, what kind of researcher he is etc
So I'm reading it. One thing I have a huge issue with is the climate models they use on computers. Alot of skeptics have pointed out that the entire issue with global warming is because these man-made computer simulations are not an accurate description of reality, and have alot of flaws in them.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a global cooling debate in 20-30 years, since I believe that the climate fluctuates. Then again I'm no expert
Oh, and just because 90% of the scientists belive that global warming is a fact, it doesn't make it true. I could probably find thousands of examples where the mainstream belief wasn't the truth. The earth being flat or what not.
So don't be fooled by numbers. Everyone should read up on the skeptics arguments too because there is alot of good stuff there.
For example: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa-
Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]
From http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html Thirdly, will we be able to produce predictable (the operative word) climate change, and a stable climate, by adjusting, at the margins, one human variable, namely carbon dioxide emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that drive climate? The answer is: "One hundred per cent, no." This is the seminal point at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from the central beliefs of the 'global warming' myth. The idea that we can manage climate predictably by adjusting, minimally, our output of some politically-selected gases is both naive and dangerous.
Like I already thought, this whole global warming thing is something our computers have calculated which makes me very iffy about it. I can definately see mistakes being made and our created mathematical models not being accurate.
On October 08 2009 20:49 Foucault wrote: Ok, one issue that should be talked about is how it's politically correct to assume that global warming is true. Ever since Al Gore released his movie about global warming and the debate grew enourmous it's just not "okay" to think that global warming isn't mainly man-made.
The issue is with the researchers and the fact that everyone assumes that global warming is a fact even before they start researching, which makes the research done HUGELY biased. This is a huge issue imo, because the general politically correct opinion leaves no room for arguments and you find people getting angry and upset when you question this. WTF
And about science being "trustworthy"; usually you find people who have no idea how science works and mainly replace god by science, saying this. Science is in many cases very trustworthy, but science isn't objective unless you're calculating your height or weight. When it comes to more complicated matters, it's about what you look at, HOW you look at it and what conclusions you draw from what you observe. Science isn't as objective as people seem to think, nor is it "right" most of the time. In fact it's very subjective, which of course often shows when scientists have different viewpoints on many issues.
Oh and global warming is a fact obviously but I think it's mainly because of climate fluctuations, and mankind has probably done some damage as well but not this noticeable.
This issue (global warming/climate change) at its core (scientific research/publication) is no different than lots of other fields of study currently being pursued by researchers. The only difference is how non-scientists are reactiong to it. Most of the complaints about global warming are debuncted simply by comparing them to a analogue complaints in other fields of research. Also, I encourage you to read that link in post 3 or 42 of the thread carefully before publicizing your opinions about how humans have not had a major impact (for your benifit, not ours).
Sure I'll read it, but I want to know who I'm reading and who funds his studies, what kind of researcher he is etc
So I'm reading it. One thing I have a huge issue with is the climate models they use on computers. Alot of skeptics have pointed out that the entire issue with global warming is because these man-made computer simulations are not an accurate description of reality, and have alot of flaws in them.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a global cooling debate in 20-30 years, since I believe that the climate fluctuates. Then again I'm no expert
Oh, and just because 90% of the scientists belive that global warming is a fact, it doesn't make it true. I could probably find thousands of examples where the mainstream belief wasn't the truth. The earth being flat or what not.
So don't be fooled by numbers. Everyone should read up on the skeptics arguments too because there is alot of good stuff there.
For example: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa-
Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]
From http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html Thirdly, will we be able to produce predictable (the operative word) climate change, and a stable climate, by adjusting, at the margins, one human variable, namely carbon dioxide emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that drive climate? The answer is: "One hundred per cent, no." This is the seminal point at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from the central beliefs of the 'global warming' myth. The idea that we can manage climate predictably by adjusting, minimally, our output of some politically-selected gases is both naive and dangerous.
Like I already thought, this whole global warming thing is something our computers have calculated which makes me very iffy about it. I can definately see mistakes being made and our created mathematical models not being accurate.
When I suggested you read the information, I meant you should include the myths about computer models and their role in the analysis of data regarding climate change.
From your posts it is very clear that you want to go about this issue in a reasonable, level-headed way, but are having trouble doing so. You are drawing conclusions and then looking for evidence to support it. I'm not telling you to just reverse your position on the issue, but I suggest you remain open/neutral until you have conducted a reasonable evaluation of all aspects of the issue (meaning read that whole thing... not just bits and pieces of it... but of course that site isn't the end-all be-all either).
I agree that 97% of scientists claiming something doesn't make it right, but I also don't understand why so many people think they know better than 97% of scientists with almost no background in the subject and no reasonable explanation for why the contrary standpoint has to be better...
On October 08 2009 20:49 Foucault wrote: Ok, one issue that should be talked about is how it's politically correct to assume that global warming is true. Ever since Al Gore released his movie about global warming and the debate grew enourmous it's just not "okay" to think that global warming isn't mainly man-made.
The issue is with the researchers and the fact that everyone assumes that global warming is a fact even before they start researching, which makes the research done HUGELY biased. This is a huge issue imo, because the general politically correct opinion leaves no room for arguments and you find people getting angry and upset when you question this. WTF
And about science being "trustworthy"; usually you find people who have no idea how science works and mainly replace god by science, saying this. Science is in many cases very trustworthy, but science isn't objective unless you're calculating your height or weight. When it comes to more complicated matters, it's about what you look at, HOW you look at it and what conclusions you draw from what you observe. Science isn't as objective as people seem to think, nor is it "right" most of the time. In fact it's very subjective, which of course often shows when scientists have different viewpoints on many issues.
Oh and global warming is a fact obviously but I think it's mainly because of climate fluctuations, and mankind has probably done some damage as well but not this noticeable.
This issue (global warming/climate change) at its core (scientific research/publication) is no different than lots of other fields of study currently being pursued by researchers. The only difference is how non-scientists are reactiong to it. Most of the complaints about global warming are debuncted simply by comparing them to a analogue complaints in other fields of research. Also, I encourage you to read that link in post 3 or 42 of the thread carefully before publicizing your opinions about how humans have not had a major impact (for your benifit, not ours).
Sure I'll read it, but I want to know who I'm reading and who funds his studies, what kind of researcher he is etc
So I'm reading it. One thing I have a huge issue with is the climate models they use on computers. Alot of skeptics have pointed out that the entire issue with global warming is because these man-made computer simulations are not an accurate description of reality, and have alot of flaws in them.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a global cooling debate in 20-30 years, since I believe that the climate fluctuates. Then again I'm no expert
Oh, and just because 90% of the scientists belive that global warming is a fact, it doesn't make it true. I could probably find thousands of examples where the mainstream belief wasn't the truth. The earth being flat or what not.
So don't be fooled by numbers. Everyone should read up on the skeptics arguments too because there is alot of good stuff there.
For example: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa-
Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]
From http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html Thirdly, will we be able to produce predictable (the operative word) climate change, and a stable climate, by adjusting, at the margins, one human variable, namely carbon dioxide emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that drive climate? The answer is: "One hundred per cent, no." This is the seminal point at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from the central beliefs of the 'global warming' myth. The idea that we can manage climate predictably by adjusting, minimally, our output of some politically-selected gases is both naive and dangerous.
Like I already thought, this whole global warming thing is something our computers have calculated which makes me very iffy about it. I can definately see mistakes being made and our created mathematical models not being accurate.
When I suggested you read the information, I meant you should include the myths about computer models and their role in the analysis of data regarding climate change.
From your posts it is very clear that you want to go about this issue in a reasonable, level-headed way, but are having trouble doing so. You are drawing conclusions and then looking for evidence to support it. I'm not telling you to just reverse your position on the issue, but I suggest you remain open/neutral until you have conducted a reasonable evaluation of all aspects of the issue (meaning read that whole thing... not just bits and pieces of it... but of course that site isn't the end-all be-all either).
I agree that 97% of scientists claiming something doesn't make it right, but I also don't understand why so many people think they know better than 97% of scientists with almost no background in the subject and no reasonable explanation for why the contrary standpoint has to be better...
First, you should be very careful about throwing out terms like "97% of scientists agree on (blah)." 97% of scientists agree that humans have influenced global climate. Do 97% of scientists agree that human influences will cause a sudden and catastrophic climate change that will eradicate all life on earth? Hell no.
It also needs to be restated that global warming isn't some grand unified field theory of some kind. There are many different and competing theories about exactly what factors have played what roles in causing the increased global temperatures we have seen. CO2 became the big player due to one particular model, but as I have said, attempts to mathematically predict future climate using these models have failed to hold up against current data.
Skepticism about global warming comes into the picture that the media keeps pushing for those models when they are continuing to fail. A theory is not scientifically justifiable if it has no predictive capacity.
However, foucault, while you are correct in stating that it's difficult for environmental researchers to get funding unless they express pro-global warming sentiments, however you are making a fundamental flaw in your argument: you are assuming that just because a model fails to account for all potential factors in global warming does not make it unjustifiable. Let me give you an example in physics:
You would probably tell me that the force called "friction" exists. After all, you can observe it and make predictions about it using models. You rely on friction to drive a car or ride a bike.
Friction actually does not exist as a fundamental force. It's something that "comes out" after you take into account all the millions and millions of electromagnetic forces pushing and pulling on each other as you rub two objects together. So are models that study frictional forces complete bullshit? Are they completely wrong and unjustifiable? No. They account for and predict a real world phenomenon that can be observed just by rubbing your hands together.
So basically, a climate model that doesn't take into account various factors but still yields accurate predictions is still perfectly justifiable.
My point is that these models have failed to predict the "anomally" of global temperatures decreasing over the past decade. Why was 1998 the hottest year on record when carbon emissions continue to rise? Why did we experience a drop of about 0.6C from 1997 to 1998? Current models cannot explain this as anything other than a statistical outlier, and if it was just that one year drop, maybe the models could be believed, but the trend indicates declining temperatures for a whole decade in the face of factors we believe to be responsible for raising global temperatures.
Now, something important to note is that there are pollutants that cause atmospheric cooling. This is also well known and well documented, however, emissions of these pollutants do not account for this sudden drop. The only reasonable assumption is that the CO2-dominated models are either lacking a key factor or are outright wrong.
But again, I should stress that this does not mean that humans have not had an environmental impact. All you have to do is step outside and look at the world around you to see our impact first hand. But the natural forces of the earth are also quite huge. The energy in many natural phenomena can be ludicrous even by the scale of nuclear weapons. For instance, the Yellowstone cauldera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera) could potentially erupt with a release of more energy than all the nuclear warheads in the entire world. And we also know that life adapts to changes and continues to thrive even when the earth itself or large asteroids from outer space or any other sudden and catastrophic climate changing events occur, and continues to form regulatory cycles. The big question is what role we have played in this and what role we will continue to play?
I should stress that trying to regulate global climate, due to our inability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (most humans struggle to deal with changes in the seasons ), is highly misguided. There's no way, for instance, that we can control changes in solar output or fluctuations of the earth's orbit. Those forces are basically beyond what our pea-brains can conceive of (note: I don't mean "we can't assign numbers to them," I mean that we think of nukes as having "lots of energy" when by comparison, nukes are but children's toys). And when it comes to trying to control the regulatory processes of other lifeforms or releasing gases in an attempt to regulate temperature, we could easily do more harm than good.
The goal should be to limit our environmental footprint (decreasing all pollution -- not just CO2; finding ways to give land back to nature or at the least preserve what we have, etc) and to figure out ways for humans to adapt to climate changes, rather than trying to force the climate to adapt to us. Ironically, this was the message Crichton wanted to make with State of Fear, but most readers badly misinterpreted what he was trying to say and cued in on details that were meant to criticize sudden and catastrophic climate change theories (rather than global warming itself), proving yet again that literacy is a serious issue in America.
And don't listen to Al Gore. The man is a sensationalist and nothing more. That he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his "work" on global warming proves yet again how meaningless that award is. Peace... where were all the Peace Prize winners when 1 million people were slaughtered over a 3 day period in Rwanda (during the same time when Al Gore was Vice President, no less)? Oh, I forgot, Africa doesn't count for anything in western society. :/
On October 08 2009 20:49 Foucault wrote: Ok, one issue that should be talked about is how it's politically correct to assume that global warming is true. Ever since Al Gore released his movie about global warming and the debate grew enourmous it's just not "okay" to think that global warming isn't mainly man-made.
The issue is with the researchers and the fact that everyone assumes that global warming is a fact even before they start researching, which makes the research done HUGELY biased. This is a huge issue imo, because the general politically correct opinion leaves no room for arguments and you find people getting angry and upset when you question this. WTF
And about science being "trustworthy"; usually you find people who have no idea how science works and mainly replace god by science, saying this. Science is in many cases very trustworthy, but science isn't objective unless you're calculating your height or weight. When it comes to more complicated matters, it's about what you look at, HOW you look at it and what conclusions you draw from what you observe. Science isn't as objective as people seem to think, nor is it "right" most of the time. In fact it's very subjective, which of course often shows when scientists have different viewpoints on many issues.
Oh and global warming is a fact obviously but I think it's mainly because of climate fluctuations, and mankind has probably done some damage as well but not this noticeable.
This issue (global warming/climate change) at its core (scientific research/publication) is no different than lots of other fields of study currently being pursued by researchers. The only difference is how non-scientists are reactiong to it. Most of the complaints about global warming are debuncted simply by comparing them to a analogue complaints in other fields of research. Also, I encourage you to read that link in post 3 or 42 of the thread carefully before publicizing your opinions about how humans have not had a major impact (for your benifit, not ours).
Sure I'll read it, but I want to know who I'm reading and who funds his studies, what kind of researcher he is etc
So I'm reading it. One thing I have a huge issue with is the climate models they use on computers. Alot of skeptics have pointed out that the entire issue with global warming is because these man-made computer simulations are not an accurate description of reality, and have alot of flaws in them.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a global cooling debate in 20-30 years, since I believe that the climate fluctuates. Then again I'm no expert
Oh, and just because 90% of the scientists belive that global warming is a fact, it doesn't make it true. I could probably find thousands of examples where the mainstream belief wasn't the truth. The earth being flat or what not.
So don't be fooled by numbers. Everyone should read up on the skeptics arguments too because there is alot of good stuff there.
For example: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa-
Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]
From http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html Thirdly, will we be able to produce predictable (the operative word) climate change, and a stable climate, by adjusting, at the margins, one human variable, namely carbon dioxide emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that drive climate? The answer is: "One hundred per cent, no." This is the seminal point at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from the central beliefs of the 'global warming' myth. The idea that we can manage climate predictably by adjusting, minimally, our output of some politically-selected gases is both naive and dangerous.
Like I already thought, this whole global warming thing is something our computers have calculated which makes me very iffy about it. I can definately see mistakes being made and our created mathematical models not being accurate.
When I suggested you read the information, I meant you should include the myths about computer models and their role in the analysis of data regarding climate change.
From your posts it is very clear that you want to go about this issue in a reasonable, level-headed way, but are having trouble doing so. You are drawing conclusions and then looking for evidence to support it. I'm not telling you to just reverse your position on the issue, but I suggest you remain open/neutral until you have conducted a reasonable evaluation of all aspects of the issue (meaning read that whole thing... not just bits and pieces of it... but of course that site isn't the end-all be-all either).
I agree that 97% of scientists claiming something doesn't make it right, but I also don't understand why so many people think they know better than 97% of scientists with almost no background in the subject and no reasonable explanation for why the contrary standpoint has to be better...
First, you should be very careful about throwing out terms like "97% of scientists agree on (blah)." 97% of scientists agree that humans have influenced global climate. Do 97% of scientists agree that human influences will cause a sudden and catastrophic climate change that will eradicate all life on earth? Hell no.
It also needs to be restated that global warming isn't some grand unified field theory of some kind. There are many different and competing theories about exactly what factors have played what roles in causing the increased global temperatures we have seen. CO2 became the big player due to one particular model, but as I have said, attempts to mathematically predict future climate using these models have failed to hold up against current data.
Skepticism about global warming comes into the picture that the media keeps pushing for those models when they are continuing to fail. A theory is not scientifically justifiable if it has no predictive capacity.
However, foucault, while you are correct in stating that it's difficult for environmental researchers to get funding unless they express pro-global warming sentiments, however you are making a fundamental flaw in your argument: you are assuming that just because a model fails to account for all potential factors in global warming does not make it unjustifiable. Let me give you an example in physics:
You would probably tell me that the force called "friction" exists. After all, you can observe it and make predictions about it using models. You rely on friction to drive a car or ride a bike.
Friction actually does not exist as a fundamental force. It's something that "comes out" after you take into account all the millions and millions of electromagnetic forces pushing and pulling on each other as you rub two objects together. So are models that study frictional forces complete bullshit? Are they completely wrong and unjustifiable? No. They account for and predict a real world phenomenon that can be observed just by rubbing your hands together.
So basically, a climate model that doesn't take into account various factors but still yields accurate predictions is still perfectly justifiable.
My point is that these models have failed to predict the "anomally" of global temperatures decreasing over the past decade. Why was 1998 the hottest year on record when carbon emissions continue to rise? Why did we experience a drop of about 0.6C from 1997 to 1998? Current models cannot explain this as anything other than a statistical outlier, and if it was just that one year drop, maybe the models could be believed, but the trend indicates declining temperatures for a whole decade in the face of factors we believe to be responsible for raising global temperatures.
Now, something important to note is that there are pollutants that cause atmospheric cooling. This is also well known and well documented, however, emissions of these pollutants do not account for this sudden drop. The only reasonable assumption is that the CO2-dominated models are either lacking a key factor or are outright wrong.
But again, I should stress that this does not mean that humans have not had an environmental impact. All you have to do is step outside and look at the world around you to see our impact first hand. But the natural forces of the earth are also quite huge. The energy in many natural phenomena can be ludicrous even by the scale of nuclear weapons. For instance, the Yellowstone cauldera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera) could potentially erupt with a release of more energy than all the nuclear warheads in the entire world. And we also know that life adapts to changes and continues to thrive even when the earth itself or large asteroids from outer space or any other sudden and catastrophic climate changing events occur, and continues to form regulatory cycles. The big question is what role we have played in this and what role we will continue to play?
I should stress that trying to regulate global climate, due to our inability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (most humans struggle to deal with changes in the seasons ), is highly misguided. There's no way, for instance, that we can control changes in solar output or fluctuations of the earth's orbit. Those forces are basically beyond what our pea-brains can conceive of (note: I don't mean "we can't assign numbers to them," I mean that we think of nukes as having "lots of energy" when by comparison, nukes are but children's toys). And when it comes to trying to control the regulatory processes of other lifeforms or releasing gases in an attempt to regulate temperature, we could easily do more harm than good.
The goal should be to limit our environmental footprint (decreasing all pollution -- not just CO2; finding ways to give land back to nature or at the least preserve what we have, etc) and to figure out ways for humans to adapt to climate changes, rather than trying to force the climate to adapt to us. Ironically, this was the message Crichton wanted to make with State of Fear, but most readers badly misinterpreted what he was trying to say and cued in on details that were meant to criticize sudden and catastrophic climate change theories (rather than global warming itself), proving yet again that literacy is a serious issue in America.
And don't listen to Al Gore. The man is a sensationalist and nothing more. That he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his "work" on global warming proves yet again how meaningless that award is. Peace... where were all the Peace Prize winners when 1 million people were slaughtered over a 3 day period in Rwanda (during the same time when Al Gore was Vice President, no less)? Oh, I forgot, Africa doesn't count for anything in western society. :/
Yeah I pretty much agree with you. I was referencing what the article said and was thus being too vague when taken out of context, and it is a good point. Although, as much as oversimplifying this issue is a major fault of many who refuse to acknowledge human-caused climate change, over complicating it (not as a scientific negativism) can unfortunately have an equally poor effect on regular (non-scientist) people.
Rather than asking: "I wanna be in favor of man-made global warming theory, teach me what I need to know to support it", you SHOULD be saying, "I wanna know more about climate change so I can decide what to think about it on my own. Share information please".
The second way of thinking will lead you to a more educated/empowered life.
Here is some info:
In general humans do not have as big an impact on the planet as we tend to think.
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."
Other sources if you wanted to do some reading. For some reason I don't understand people get all religious about global warming and don't even like to read things that might shake their "faith" but I will list them anyway.
What I would like to see is a real debate over the role economics/politics have played in the debate over global warming. For example, nobody is surprised to find out that studies that were sponsored by drug companies tend to usually make the drug out to be better than it really is. However, we somehow expect climate scientists to be immune to the $$$ effect even though we accept that medical scientists are not. The fact is that billions of dollars go into climate research that would not have if there was not a perception that global warming is a crisis and is man-made. How smart is it to put yourself out of a job by saying, "meh, as far as we can tell we can't do anything about it"?
Money ALWAYS is a factor. Remember that golden rule. Scientists and even doctors are not exempt from that. If you watch that video I linked, you will see first hand scientists talking about the enormous pressure they were under to "find" things in favor of man-made warming. If you want to make money as a scientist, you face some huge incentives.
That, I think, should at least be a part of any discussion about global warming..just like who sponsored a drug study should always be known and taken into account when doctors are deciding what to prescribe.
Savio, in addition to the pressures that scientists faced to find a link between humans and global warming (apparently), would you also agree that some scientists (many of the ones who don't support human caused global warming) were under pressure from the petrol industry?
climate can rapidly change on its own and have done so many times in the past. I personally don't think there is enough evidence to support that the climate changes are man-made that of course doesn't mean that we shouldn't act on it but we should neither ban things that will save lives just because its bad for the environment (talking mainly about the consumption of fossil-fuel and not some “other thing that I have not thought of”)
First, I should say that I voted "no" in the poll, but it must be reiterated (again) that humans have had a very large impact on the environment. All the land we've claimed for cities and cultivated for agriculture is proof of this.
Secondly, I voted "no" because I believe the CO2-dominated theories to be wrong. But that does not mean we are not responsible for climate change. We might be or we might not be. I believe that there are other factors involved in climate change (many natural, some human-influenced) that we do not understand.
It should be stated (for the first time in this thread), that microbial lifeforms actually have a substantially greater influence on the earth's climate than we do. It's commonly believed that microbial lifeforms are what turned this planet from a barren rock into what it is today -- that is to say that life itself creates more opportunity for life and that microbial lifeforms have played the essential role in all of this. FFS, even your bodies are teeming with microbial life and recent research into how that life interacts wioth your body, in particular the digestive system, has led to many breakthroughs in modern medicine.
We do not know what our impact has been on these microbial lifeforms. We do not know what our water pollution has done to them. We do not know what our agriculture with all our fertilizers and pesticides has done to them. We do not know what our industrial waste has done to them. We simply are not in a position to say those things, and more likely than not these factors have had more direct environmental impact than anything else we have done.
About money: most of the environmental research today comes out of the pockets of environmentalist groups (which have now become a huge industry in their own right, particularly with the Hollywood crowd jumping on the bandwagon) and government agencies, which each have their own objectives and motivations. (The first and foremost perogative of every government agency is receiving more funding, so most of them take a "pro-environment" stance so that they can justify their research.) Private industry funds very little of the research. This is one of the ironies of so-called "environmentalists" (activists, not scientists) claiming that any "anti-global warming" research is a product of the oil companies. Truth be told, I doubt the oil companies really care either way, because they know that even if the oil market in the U.S. declines, the rising oil markets in the developing world will more than make up for it. And no good alternative fuel is visible on the horizon. They still have decades. With the way things are looking right now, by the time an alternative fuel is truly ready -- that is, by the time an alternative fuel has been properly tested, rubber stamped, and suficient ifrastructure has been set-up -- we will probably be at a point where whatever oil out there that's left is difficult to extract anyway.
EPT
) don't know anything about. It's like arguing about string theory when you've only taken high school physics.
), is highly misguided. There's no way, for instance, that we can control changes in solar output or fluctuations of the earth's orbit. Those forces are basically beyond what our pea-brains can conceive of (note: I don't mean "we can't assign numbers to them," I mean that we think of nukes as having "lots of energy" when by comparison, nukes are but children's toys). And when it comes to trying to control the regulatory processes of other lifeforms or releasing gases in an attempt to regulate temperature, we could easily do more harm than good.![[image loading]](http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif)
