Global Warming: Is The Debate Over?

[Matter-Eater Lad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y6jjk8BW7M&feature=related

 

"Greenland's temperature rose 50% faster in the 1920's then now"

[GazeboflossUK]

Well, again....there IS 'climate change' and some of that will be warming.

 

But the problem is that WE are being exploited and manipulated - being forced to pay carbon related taxes and alter the way we live......when infact WE are not the major cause of the temperature changes.

[dkizzy]

there is no question in my mind that global warming is NOT actually happening. In fact global COOLING may begin to take place soon.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't protect the environment, but global warming is absolutely false.

 

If you have any doubts, google: John Coleman Global Warming.

he is the founder of the Weather Channel and has 40 convincing pages of arguments against global warming.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Global warming taking time and effort away from the real issue's.....Cancer causing pollution, over fishing, animal and plants going extinct and other issues that REALLY matter, not the pseudo-science of global warming.

 

Thanks for the info dkizzy!

[Matter-Eater Lad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dDE_e5Pme0

 

Go look at the quote that is 3.05 minutes into the video. It's a quote by Al Gore.

[felicote]

anyone that is interested in environmental issues read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael.

Even if GW is not true, there are plenty of compelling arguments there to convince anyone that humans must change our ways of life. It might be the only book ive ever read that has actually changed my life.

[chuck kottke]

It is a very complicated matter, and the Earth's climate is always in flux, owing to many, many factors. However, we would be fooling ourselves to think that the scientific community has been recording data and studying the climate all these years, and actually trying to dupe us all. I think sometimes we get hung up on ideas, models, or assumptions, when later we find a larger truth that clarifies the picture.

One undeniable fact remains in that we are removing from the Earth's crust fixed carbon, and through combustion of these 'fossil' fuels, have been combining them with atmospheric oxygen, to yield ever greater levels of CO2 in the biosphere. When do we reach a threshold / tipping point, and how rapidly is this carbon being reduced to non-atmospheric/oceanic carbon?

We may have overlapped a cooling trend, but could be driving the CO2 levels past normal fluctuations - and the effects could be quite severe, all changes in solar intensity aside. But consider that oil, gas, and coal companies balk at climate scientists' predictions because these scientists could dramatically alter their businesses; self-interested groups tend to heckle anyone who sees problems related to their practices. One good example: the Bush administration had been suppressing top scientists at NASA, when the reports went against administration policy. Anotherwords, there is an effort to stifle the truth on climate change, and it's coming from the fossil fuel industries..

[Matter-Eater Lad]

anyone that is interested in environmental issues read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael.

Even if GW is not true, there are plenty of compelling arguments there to convince anyone that humans must change our ways of life. It might be the only book ive ever read that has actually changed my life.

 

Oh I agree, were destroying our planet but not by warming it. By killing off its plants and animals and causing cancer and polluting drinking war and the ocean. WE need to focus on the real issue's not corrupt politicians using fake science scare tactics on the weak minded.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

It is a very complicated matter, and the Earth's climate is always in flux, owing to many, many factors. However, we would be fooling ourselves to think that the scientific community has been recording data and studying the climate all these years, and actually trying to dupe us all. I think sometimes we get hung up on ideas, models, or assumptions, when later we find a larger truth that clarifies the picture.

One undeniable fact remains in that we are removing from the Earth's crust fixed carbon, and through combustion of these 'fossil' fuels, have been combining them with atmospheric oxygen, to yield ever greater levels of CO2 in the biosphere. When do we reach a threshold / tipping point, and how rapidly is this carbon being reduced to non-atmospheric/oceanic carbon?

We may have overlapped a cooling trend, but could be driving the CO2 levels past normal fluctuations - and the effects could be quite severe, all changes in solar intensity aside. But consider that oil, gas, and coal companies balk at climate scientists' predictions because these scientists could dramatically alter their businesses; self-interested groups tend to heckle anyone who sees problems related to their practices. One good example: the Bush administration had been suppressing top scientists at NASA, when the reports went against administration policy. Anotherwords, there is an effort to stifle the truth on climate change, and it's coming from the fossil fuel industries..

 

Actually many research projects show, co2 might help the earth not hurt it.

 

When science uses unscientific means to push their political agenda, its not science anymore. Global warming is nothing more then scare tactics to gain research money by some scientist and power by some politicians.

[chuck kottke]

To the contrary! Climate researchers do vie for funding, but their biggest payoff is finding greater truths, and getting noticed for their ideas. At times, research profs. become unwilling to change positions because they think they have all the answers, and therefore resist new information if it goes against their ideas (their "pets"), or other established concepts; this is more of a mindset problem; the lesser problem is graft for gaining research dollars.

However, there is a concerted effort by the fossil fuel industries to throw up a smokescreen when the scientific investigations begin to show a strong correlation between burning fossil fuels and climate changes as a result of that.

If I had to choose between the two, I would put more faith in the scientists, as they have less to loose by being truthful, and more to gain through discovering and disseminating the truth. For the "fossil industry", it's just the opposite. They're the Tobacco industry of the new century.

[chuck kottke]

If by taking carbon and placing it in the atmosphere/oceans/life on earth, we are perhaps temporarily staving off a cooling trend, this could be the case. However, placing such a large quantity of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in so very short a span of time is running an experiment, one that hasn't been run by any other natural means since the planet's formation.

Given the enormity of the risk, plus the risks associated on down the line with the fossil fuel industry, I'm casting my vote to err on the side of caution, seeing as the consequences are so great if we are making a mistake by mass consumption of these trapped forms of carbon.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

To the contrary! Climate researchers do vie for funding, but their biggest payoff is finding greater truths, and getting noticed for their ideas. At times, research profs. become unwilling to change positions because they think they have all the answers, and therefore resist new information if it goes against their ideas (their "pets"), or other established concepts; this is more of a mindset problem; the lesser problem is graft for gaining research dollars.

However, there is a concerted effort by the fossil fuel industries to throw up a smokescreen when the scientific investigations begin to show a strong correlation between burning fossil fuels and climate changes as a result of that.

If I had to choose between the two, I would put more faith in the scientists, as they have less to loose by being truthful, and more to gain through discovering and disseminating the truth. For the "fossil industry", it's just the opposite. They're the Tobacco industry of the new century.

 

 

No way, fear tactics are the biggest pay offs in science.

 

Science is against global warming, hence the large amount of scientist coming out against it. Those are the people without political or money agenda's. Ill follow the science on this issue, and it says global warming isn't man made and isn't happening at an alarming rate.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

If by taking carbon and placing it in the atmosphere/oceans/life on earth, we are perhaps temporarily staving off a cooling trend, this could be the case. However, placing such a large quantity of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in so very short a span of time is running an experiment, one that hasn't been run by any other natural means since the planet's formation.

Given the enormity of the risk, plus the risks associated on down the line with the fossil fuel industry, I'm casting my vote to err on the side of caution, seeing as the consequences are so great if we are making a mistake by mass consumption of these trapped forms of carbon.

 

In fact most studies show, C02 is NOT bad and causing global warming.

 

In fact global temperature rise happens BEFORE CO2 Rises . I'm not a genius but if it happens after temperature rise, it's not causing it.

 

In fact research show's solar activity causes more change in earth's temperature then any man made action.....

 

All the science is there and easy to prove global warming is not man made. It's pure and simple science.

 

It's a sad day when science is ignored, while people listen to government and greedy bastards make up fairy tales.

 

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

[stingfan]

Regardless of any research, findings, etc., we should all try to do our part to make the Earth a better place. Try to conserve energy by turning off the tv when you're not watching it. Recycle plastic (ESPECIALLY plastic), metal, paper, glass, etc. Try to get a conservation movement going at your school. You'd be amazed what you can accomplish if you just try.

[Fixed]

Surely all the crap that comes out of a car's exhaust pipe alone must be doing some damage to the environment? Then again I don't know what percentage of that is crap and what's been cleaned or whatever by the catalytic converter. Maybe I should watch An Inconvenient Truth...

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Surely all the crap that comes out of a car's exhaust pipe alone must be doing some damage to the environment? Then again I don't know what percentage of that is crap and what's been cleaned or whatever by the catalytic converter. Maybe I should watch An Inconvenient Truth...

 

To our bodies but no evidence it changes global temperature.

 

How about reading the facts behind An Inconvenient Truth first...ALWAYS fact check movies that claim to be documentaries

 

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 

Gore's movies have been proven by scientist doing research to be mostly false. I implore people to look up the science and not to be a victim of the stupid media.

 

Watch what scientist have to say

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zbzc8&feature=related

[Matter-Eater Lad]

NOTE*

 

Times in history where we had 10x the CO2 we have today, the history and science add up to CO2 not causing global warming. All the science is there, just the majority of humans are too stupid to research the facts for themselves while a few smart people tell lies and make millions and gain new powers in government.

 

CO2 rises FOLLOW the temperature rises in history...thus if it happened AFTER the rise it couldn't have caused it.

 

 

 

The IPCC, couldn't even find 2500 scientist for their panel on global warming so a large group of the people weren't really scientist but government officials and many of the scientist on the board came out and said man did not cause global warming. So when you have the UN Falsify records to prove a point, you know were not dealing with science but political agenda's.

 

In fact more scientist are coming out against it then for it. We must be careful of people hijacking "science" for their financial and or political agenda's and that is what's happening today.

 

One more note* Global warming is a good tool by the west to prevent development in other countries like Africa. Another way the UN and west can control Africa, through pseudo science. Funny how not too long ago evolution was used to justify treating non whites bad because they were less human....good old pseudo science helping out the corrupt and power hungry once more.

 

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2b6ARDCFse4&feature=related

 

The modern global warming started before the economic boom and before the majority of factories and green house gas. Temperature actually fell after ww2 when there was a economic boom and huge rise in factories and greenhouse emissions. Looking at history we can see man does change the temperature.

[Scribble127]

I will offer two caveats to the debate:

 

1. Having spent considerable time in academic circles, I will assert that a significant number of scientific papers are subject to confirmation bias and are therefore spurious (particularly second rate research from less recognized institutions). Unless the conclusion is mathematically provable, there is room to manouvre for academics to conclude an open ended hypothesis either way (invariably in the best interests of the researcher). Note that though statistical methods provide useful indicators, they are not conclusive.

 

2. Academics have a clear conflict of interest; they have an incentive to discover controversial or dramatic findings, because it offers exposure and secures future funding. You would have to be incredibly naive to believe that the exponential growth in the US climate research budget is entirely attributed to need.

 

Behind the very public pantomime, the following is what one can rationally conclude:

 

* The Earth warms and cools frequently and cyclically.

* Humans have probably impacted and continue to impact this process, but not to the extent that doom mongers would like you to believe.

* It is probably too late (and logistically impossible) to reverse these impacts.

 

That is all.

[Black Rose]

Human's have sped up the natural process

[bart]

Global warming taking time and effort away from the real issue's.....Cancer causing pollution, over fishing, animal and plants going extinct and other issues that REALLY matter, not the pseudo-science of global warming.

 

!

agreed :cool:

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Human's have sped up the natural process

 

Science and history beg to differ.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

agreed :cool:

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?!

 

I must say I'm surprised but very happy:)

[dkizzy]

OK,

No one should refrence An Inconvienient Truth as proof that global warming is happening.

 

In fact, that graph that he used in the begining to convince everyone that the earth was warming faster now than ever was proved by the scientific community to be false.

 

The new graph shows that the temperature is no warmer today than it was in the 1400's.

 

Also, I believe the hottest year on record was in 1934, or 43, I can't remember which, but neither of those years is close to 2008, am I right?

 

Another thing, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a naturally gas in the atmosphere and does no harm to the earth.

 

Global warming is an insane idea if you ask me.

[chuck kottke]

1400

 

I remember that year well - 1400. :laugh3: What might actually be happening is the overlay of warmer conditions over a natural cooling cycle (natural via earth's wobble / tilt & solar activity levels). It may or may not be a problem yet, owing to reversing of a cooling trend. So, what we do know is that the CO2 levels today are very high, quite high in geological terms. And it's important to consider mass balance on the planet. If we have been removing carbon stored in the crust (oil, gas, coal, peat, etc.), and burning that, then obviously the carbon combines with oxygen, giving an increase in CO2 levels (and perhaps a slight decrease in O2 levels). How much the sea absorbs, how much gets locked away in biomass, and how much stays in the atmosphere - perhaps the scientific understanding has advanced sufficiently to give us a good estimate; but it is very complicated. Once CO2 levels reach a threshold, then the climate change is likely to accelerate, and we seem to be seeing signs indicating that. Less snowfall and shorter winters in the north & warmer winters in the north; Drier seasons elsewhere, and more unstable weather; a melting of ice-caps and glaciers. Now I'm not saying that we're 100% responsible, but certainly our presence has had an impact, as it has for the thousands of years of agriculture from human activities. Yes, CO2 is natural, but it's levels that matter most. Pollution is merely matter, but how it affects life relates to whether or not one might consider a given compound polluting. Manure, for instance, may not be considered pollution, if properly digested and applied to farm fields, but if allowed to run into waterways unchecked, then it poses harm to aquatic life, as well as humans.

Climate change scientists are prone to the failings of any humans, but there are those who choose the prize of discovering greater truths over research money! There are some caveats that can delay the truth; sometimes people put their pet theories ahead of finding the real truth, or have set their minds on one way of thinking, when something else may be afoot as a mechanism, and they could be way off. Constructive criticism is sometimes met with great opposition, but in the end, the truth shines through (as it has)..

[chuck kottke]

Instead of looking at a snapshot (one year here, one year there) look at the long term record, going back thousands of years, and see what happened when, and why. Of course, there are other factors as well. Since there is a great deal of very small soot particles in the atmosphere, there is a lot more scattered light, which seems to be offsetting the effects of warming due to greenhouse gases. So, if we clean up our emissions as we have been doing, then the slow warming trend may actually begin to accelerate, even as we taper off our levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Add to that, the methane from thawing permafrost, and there you have it - accelerated global warming!

I'm not one to side with the alarmists (Lovelock comes to mind), as they want us all to move to Greenland, and wait for it all to melt! (they think the rest of the planet will be uninhabitable..). But given the risks we are running, and the combined risks of all the attendant processes required to obtain all that oil, coal, and gas, then I'm inclined to press for incentives to drastically reduce global dependence on fossil fuels, and boost the economy using more intelligent means, such as efficiency measures and quality-of-life measures (the real economic indicator).;)