Global warming?

[Bullet2head]

People are now flipping out because of Global warming. We have experts everywhere basically screaming the problem to the Governments. President Bush is saying "We don't know all the facts of the problem."

It makes no sense why people are, in a way, offended by this. They say it's not happening, or we'll deal with it when it gets here.


What do you all think?

[Kassad]

Global Warming has been shown time and time again.

In my first grade year (8 years ago), I had 12 snow days. In 6th, 7th and 8th combined, none. Not to mention much less snowfall (Record lows for Ohio).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=inconvenient+truth

That's a preview for the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". It's a very powerful movie that gives the truth about the situation.

Now don't get me wrong. For all we know, the Earth could go through this cycle every 5000 years. But nevertheless, DO NOT deny the facts that something is happening. It's not a coincidence that the 10 hottest years all occured in the last 14 years. It's obvious, and the science is there. It's like Darfur. If Bush calls it a problem, then he has to do something about it. Which is what every person needs to do. Do something about it.

[Chaos]

Global warming is sensationalist BS. It's what happens when politics intrudes on science.

[Bullet2head]

But it's true. Have you ever seen those slides on what's going to happen? A lot of the water on Earth is up in the Artic or in Anartica.

[Kassad]

Global warming is sensationalist BS. It's what happens when politics intrudes on science.

Global Warming is not BS. The way politicians use it is. Politicians see modern problems, and promise it will be solved (Bush did it back in 2000). That's how they win votes.

[CajunMan]

Global warming is a figment of your imagination do you have any proof of it besides some ice melting. If global warming comes we will just buy more air conditioners. If global warming were true we would be getting fucked in the ass right now. Untill then its not our problem when this earth turns to a hell hole it wont be our prob IF this stuff actually happens.

[Jake]

You want evidence? The global average temperature has risen by 5 degrees celcius, enough to make ice caps melt at an alarming rate. Take a look at these pictures showing the glaciers melting

http://www.livescience.com/images/030324_glacierB_03.jpghttp://images.livescience.com/images/060324_glacier_pics_01.jpg

Source: LiveScience.com


At the rate this is going, Earth will be a mirror image of the movie, The Day After Tommorrow. My proof? Scientists say that the exponential increase in hurricane strength every season is a direct effect from global warming. In other words, had global warming not been a problem, we wouldn't have had hurricanes as intense as Katrina and Rita. Yes we would still have hurricanes, but most of them would not be over category 3.

As a result of global warming, the Northeast (New England) region of the U.S. is quickly becoming a tropical area (IE wet and dry season). It has not stopped raining here since the day "summer" started. And last winter there was only THREE snowstorms, compared to the year before when there were THIRTEEN.

[Kassad]

Watch the trailer I posted in my previous post.

Hell, I know you won't, but see the movie. It describes how ice has thinned out in the Arctic. They're finding reports of Polar Bears who have drowned because they were unable to find a thick patch of ice. They would swim for hours and die of exhaustion. That wasn't happening 10 years ago. It amazes me how people can be so narrow-minded to facts.

Yay, we buy more air conditioners. Are air conditioners going to stop the ice caps from melting and drowning parts of the world? If the caps in the Arctic melted, parts of the Earth would be underwater, meaning homes and cities would be evacuated, leaving millions of refugees. Is your fancy air conditioner going to help then?

[Chaos]

1. Whether global warming is even occurring is not an answered question. Thirty years ago it was "global cooling" that everyone was worried about.
2. The effects of "global warming" are not known and speculation is based on, the scientists themselves admit, completely faulty computer models.
3. The human contribution to global warming is hardly settled either.

An Inconvenient Truth is a propaganda film and not worth the film it's on. Al Gore (was) a fat, bearded moron, and now he's a skinny, shaved moron. This is his last chance to be remembered by history as anything but a never-was.

[Kassad]

But an Inconvenient Truth posted hard facts. Ice doesn't melt for no reason. It's obviously...Oh I don't know...getting warmer? Like I said, whether it's really our fault like they say, something is happening and we need to pay attention to it. We need to understand it and devote more time to it before it's possible too late.

[NectarSweet]

Global warming is sensationalist BS. It's what happens when politics intrudes on science.

So the facts that the Earth is warmer now than it has ever been in the past 20,000 years is BS?
Even if you believe that its politics putting pressure on the scientists to make sensationalist claims, there are enough facts about the global warming on the Earth to see that something has to be done.
We know that the reason planets like Venus are so hot, is that greenhouse gases trap the suns energy in. It is not a huge leap forward to say that the greater the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere here, will incur the same effect


Global warming is a figment of your imagination do you have any proof of it besides some ice melting. If global warming comes we will just buy more air conditioners. If global warming were true we would be getting fucked in the ass right now. Untill then its not our problem when this earth turns to a hell hole it wont be our prob IF this stuff actually happens.

The entire planets eco system is far too dependant on stability to think that changing the conditions of the planet won't have an effect (its possible, however unlikely that it could have a positive effect).


Whether global warming is even occurring is not an answered question. Thirty years ago it was "global cooling" that everyone was worried about.

the world is still warmer now than it has ever been in the past 20,000 years

The effects of "global warming" are not known and speculation is based on, the scientists themselves admit, completely faulty computer models.

Do you mean what effects a significantly warmer planet will have on the ecosystem? Or wheter having more greenhouse gases in the planet = hotter planet?

3. The human contribution to global warming is hardly settled either.

True, the same effects could have happened in the past due to volcanic eruptions en mass, but what I ask is: if this is purely down to some natural cycle of the Earth, should we just sit back and wait it out and assume it'll work out for the best? Or, try and do something to stabilize the planet and save the ecosystem

[Chaos]

Global warming is crap. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1017204.stm)

Half of these "global warming" facts are based on assumptions we make because we don't understand certain parts of our atmosphere very well or at all.

I'll believe in global warming when Al Gore stops saying humanity is doomed and they get some valid data that isn't based on guesses inserted into a computer program.

It gets annoying to read terribly flawed studies and have Al Gore get hysterical over it.

[Jake]

The link you posted only argues whether or not Humans have anything to do with it. It actually acknowledges the fact that global warming exists. Thanks for helping us out :beerchug:

You cannot argue the fact that it exists, it does, and there is no way to deny it. The only arguable fact here is whether or not Humans caused it and / or are able to do anything about it.

[Kassad]

Valid studies? What about the studies that meausured carbon in the atmosphere with weather balloons. Not to mention it's hotter! Like I said before. Snow used to cover ohio in 4-5 inches at LEAST 8 times. The last 2 winters we've gotten hardly any snow. It's basic things that we ourselves can notice.

[Chaos]

The last two winters are a valid sample!

Thirty years ago Time and Newsweek and the rest ran hysterical stories about sheets of ice descending from the Arctic the whole way to New York City and how humanity had to do something or we'd all be doomed by "global cooling."

Today it's not even "global warming" since the globe actually stopped warming in 1998 and started to cool again, today they call it "climate change."

In thirty year's it's changed three times, and I'm not going to believe in something allegedly backed by science that's changed three times in thirty years. Has science changed what it says happens when you split the atom every few decades? No, because they know 100% for a fact what happens. It's beyond debate.

The same cannot be said for a phenomenon, global warming, that is based on a "scientific consensus" that does not exist, laughable "studies," flawed computer models, and political grandstanding. I'll believe in global warming when Manhattan is under 200 feet of water. Until then, no.

[Jake]

Hmm... so the fact that the glaciers in yellowstone are now lakes doesn't affect your opinion in the slightest?

[Kassad]

Actually, if the glaciers melt like they have been recently, Manhattan WILL be underwater.

[Bullet2head]

As will Florida, half the East coast, The coast of asia, Japan, the list goes on.

Why the hell won't the government do anything?

[p3ngu!n]

Ahmahgad Al Gore made a movie about global warming so it MUST be liberal bullshit to insult Daddy Bush.

Seriously, Chaos, stop defending your administration so blindly. There is 0 (zip, nada) argument in the scientific community that global warming is not ocurring at an accelerated rate. The evidence supporting that we're causing the damage is overwhelming. What the fuck do you gain from refusing to accept that it is real? Tell me, seriously. This is not a matter of taking down your administration or insulting the Republican party which is all you really seem to care about. It's a matter of saving humanity from our own stupidity.

[TheRabidDeer]

You want evidence? The global average temperature has risen by 5 degrees celcius, enough to make ice caps melt at an alarming rate. Take a look at these pictures showing the glaciers melting

http://www.livescience.com/images/030324_glacierB_03.jpghttp://images.livescience.com/images/060324_glacier_pics_01.jpg

Source: LiveScience.com


At the rate this is going, Earth will be a mirror image of the movie, The Day After Tommorrow. My proof? Scientists say that the exponential increase in hurricane strength every season is a direct effect from global warming. In other words, had global warming not been a problem, we wouldn't have had hurricanes as intense as Katrina and Rita. Yes we would still have hurricanes, but most of them would not be over category 3.
There is no exponential growth in hurricane strength every season.

I posted this in response to some rolling stone sensationalist article about global warming on the temp forums:
"They claim for instance that hurricanes are getting 50 percent stronger and longer, but cite ZERO evidence. They mention a paper but dont tell you what it says, not even a paraphrase. Also, I looked back on the hurricane seasons on wikipedia and didnt see much change.... for instance, 2004 season was a really late start (5th latest since 1952), it also wasnt all too active. Meanwhile, the 2005 season bursted and broke records. If we have a similarly active and strong season this year, then it might be something to be wary of... but we are a week into it and nothing so far.

The 2005 season broke the following records held for these years:
Number of storms in a season (1950)
Most intense storms in a season (1961)
Most storms formed before end of july (1887)"

Look at wikipedia yourself for the hurricane seasons and you can see. So far (a month into the hurricane season) we have yet to have a major hurricane (that I know of).

EDIT: http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2006/June%2017.htm

"Correlation is not causation" btw.

EDIT2: the article I listed debunks pretty much everything global warming related, be it gore's movie or somebodies tragic tale of polar bears not being able to find solid ice.

[Kassad]

Right. And these glaciers magically melted. What causes Ice to melt? Heat. If the ice is melting rapidly, it must be very hot, or getting hotter.

However, a new peer-reviewed study shows that in South America's Andes Mountains the glaciers' advances and retreats have not been governed by CO2, but by small variations in the sun's intensity.

Hmm, and what impedes the progress of the intensity of the sun? The atmosphere, which is being depleted!

[Doombringer64]

Humans are so fucking arrogant. For thousands of years they thought their sins would bring about the end of the world (and some still do). Then they thought the nuclear bomb would destroy the atmosphere. Next they were worried that the H bomb would throw the planet of its axis. Now they fear that gay looking hummer. The planet must be laughing its ass off.

Question does anybody trust the weather man with next weeks weather (those who live in California are excluded we all know the weather is the same everyday)? My internet browser gives me a weather read out and the only thing it gets right is current temperature. So why in the hell would you trust over glorified weather men for next hundred year’s weather or even the weather for the next thousand years?

Weather and climate are near impossible to predict. There are too many variables and we do not have enough data to accurately predict anything (we have a hundred years of relatively accurate measuring, and that’s being generous). Of course if you just skimmed the headlines you wouldn’t know that, but if you actually read the articles you would find the supposed “proof” of global warming is anecdotal at best, and there is not a shred of evidence to link mankind to the supposed warming.
Oh, and has anybody actually listened to a climatologist talk? It’s fucking painful they sound about as credible as evangelical Christians (it’s a fair comparison both spout end of the world bullshit with very little if any fact to back it up).
And drop the scientific consensus bullshit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consensus

con•sen•sus P Pronunciation Key (k n-s n s s)
n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: “Among political women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced” (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
Referring my previous example there is a consensus among evangelicals that the world was created in six days. Does anybody call that science? Fuck no. So why the hell do we care what the scientists opinions are? Assholes you’ve lost all your fucking reasoning skills the title scientists isn’t what makes an argument credible it’s the fucking data the title brings to the table. The “data” of global warming is scanty to say the least.

[TheRabidDeer]

Hmm, and what impedes the progress of the intensity of the sun? The atmosphere, which is being depleted!
The sun itself. Unless you are trying to say our atmosphere affects something 93 million miles away. Your post is probably the most idiotic post in the entire thread.

[Kassad]

Um, you're aware without Earth's Atmosphere, we would all roast. I'm saying that the Earth's Atmosphere deflects a large amount of the Sun's rays away from the Earth. So, how is that idiotic?

Oh, my bad. I forgot that Protoss Warp Shield was really blocking the suns rays. I'm so ignorant towards the facts.

[TheRabidDeer]

Um, you're aware without Earth's Atmosphere, we would all roast. I'm saying that the Earth's Atmosphere deflects a large amount of the Sun's rays away from the Earth. So, how is that idiotic?

Oh, my bad. I forgot that Protoss Warp Shield was really blocking the suns rays. I'm so ignorant towards the facts.
You are idiotic because what is said in the article is the SUNS variations, not the earths atmosphere (as can be seen because they are VARIATIONS, that is HIGHER and LOWER, not just higher). Also, the atmosphere more protects us from UV rays and such and also helps to keep the heat IN, so the loss of our atmosphere would mean it would be much colder (as well as hotter). Look at the moon.

[Kassad]

But more higher or more lower? Notice that the 10 hottest years have all occured in the last 14 years. Coincidence? Possibly, but I wouldn't count on it.

Yes, with no atmosphere it would be cooler becuase the heat wouldn't stay in, but keep in mind, we'd be getting pounded by 100% of the Sun's rays. UV and all. We'd all be dead.

[TheRabidDeer]

But more higher or more lower? Notice that the 10 hottest years have all occured in the last 14 years. Coincidence? Possibly, but I wouldn't count on it.
Not even a coincidence, its normal. And these havent been the 10 hottest years for the world.
"Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all-time high temperature records is also misleading, according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.""
^---- from the link I posted earlier

Yes, with no atmosphere it would be cooler becuase the heat wouldn't stay in, but keep in mind, we'd be getting pounded by 100% of the Sun's rays. UV and all. We'd all be dead.
Then why dont you make a seperate thread for trying to preserve the earths atmosphere? Because that is an ENTIRELY different topic.

[Kassad]

They do piece together quite well though. No Atmosphere, Earth dies. I mean, is that whole" Hole in the Ozone Layer" BS? If so, show me some research or article, and maybe I'll understand a bit better.

Like I've said countless times: It's getting hotter. Whether it's natural or Global Warming, something's going on. The Ice caps are melting. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you have to admit that something is happening. I'm not denying that it could be natural, but something is happening and more time should be spent studying it.

[TheRabidDeer]

They do piece together quite well though. No Atmosphere, Earth dies. I mean, is that whole" Hole in the Ozone Layer" BS? If so, show me some research or article, and maybe I'll understand a bit better.

Like I've said countless times: It's getting hotter. Whether it's natural or Global Warming, something's going on. The Ice caps are melting. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you have to admit that something is happening. I'm not denying that it could be natural, but something is happening and more time should be spent studying it.
Yes, its getting "hotter" (by hotter, I mean in the next hundred years we might see a 1 degree increase) for now. I dont see why you are saying it is though because its a natural cycle that the earth has gone through for well.... forever. Eventually itll start to cool off again. There is pretty much nothing that we can do to stop it or really change the cycle. Also, they are working on trying to study the earths climate... there are zillions of factors that are brought in and we only know of a fraction of them, we are a long way off from being able to understand it all.

EDIT: Oh, and I need to re-iterate here so people dont try and make this post a "zomg he believes in global warming!" post.

Global warming, as the politicians and the people that feed off our fears have put it does not exist. Period.

[Kassad]

I never denied that it could be a part of Earth's cycle.

I just want to be able to say "Okay, the world's getting hotter" and have people at least be able to tell me why without getting some opinions saying it's a lie, some blaming humans, and some saying it's natural. I think the government, or at least the people should try to understand what Global Warming, or whatever the hell it is.

[TheRabidDeer]

I never denied that it could be a part of Earth's cycle.

I just want to be able to say "Okay, the world's getting hotter" and have people at least be able to tell me why without getting some opinions saying it's a lie, some blaming humans, and some saying it's natural. I think the government, or at least the people should try to understand what Global Warming, or whatever the hell it is.
Thats the thing. WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT. Climateologists are working on figuring this stuff out... but there are tons of variables that they are trying to get right too. Seriously, the earth is millions of years old and we have 100 years of semi-accurate information (as doom said), its going to take a lot of time to get it right.

Also, saying "the world is getting hotter" is not the same thing as saying "global warming is real". Global warming is more of a catastrophic change that will doom the world.

[Kassad]

See, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I refuse to say Global Warming is happening. I believe the world is getting hotter and it's made quite obvious to us.

Of course it will take time. I just wish the US government would focus on other things besides terrorism.

[TheRabidDeer]

See, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I refuse to say Global Warming is happening. I believe the world is getting hotter and it's made quite obvious to us.
That is exactly what I have been saying... minus the obvious part, since its not too obvious :P
Of course it will take time. I just wish the US government would focus on other things besides terrorism.
They are focusing on a large number of things, its just that terrorism has the publics attention and its what the media publishes because of that. They wont publish something that people wont read or watch, and a majority of people dont read things that dont scare us or seem important at the time.

[Kassad]

Amen to that. This kind of blends with the Conservative Media Thread. The Media reports what gets it good ratings and that's about it.

[Golgo 13]

I think it's a little telling that there is a host of scientific peer-reviewed literature that confirms the concensus that global warming is real and not a single one that states otherwise.

[Doombringer64]

I think it's a little telling that there is a host of scientific peer-reviewed literature that confirms the concensus that global warming is rea and not a single one that states otherwise.
Let's go out and prove unicorns don't exist.

[Pikachu]

I think it's a little telling that there is a host of scientific peer-reviewed literature that confirms the concensus that global warming is rea and not a single one that states otherwise.
And any peer-reviewed literature claiming solutions to this problem are a whole other ball of wax.

You can't fight the tide: embrace global warming.

[Chaos]

Seriously, Chaos, stop defending your administration so blindly. There is 0 (zip, nada) argument in the scientific community that global warming is not ocurring at an accelerated rate. The evidence supporting that we're causing the damage is overwhelming. What the fuck do you gain from refusing to accept that it is real? Tell me, seriously. This is not a matter of taking down your administration or insulting the Republican party which is all you really seem to care about. It's a matter of saving humanity from our own stupidity.

This has nothing to do with the Bush Administration. (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605)

The one blinded by ideology here is you, pengy.

Let's review:

There is 0 (zip, nada) argument in the scientific community that global warming is not ocurring at an accelerated rate

Besides being a logical fallacy (acting as if the only issue here is 'argument whether global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate'), there is indeed argument in the scientific community.

pengy, you and your childish style of debate really aren't worth my time anymore.

I have plenty of other examples of the laughable myth that is "scientific consensus" on global warming too, in case anyone wants to read more scientists making boring remarks about global warming.

[TheRabidDeer]

I think it's a little telling that there is a host of scientific peer-reviewed literature that confirms the concensus that global warming is rea and not a single one that states otherwise.
"Gore mentioned a recent literature review study by Naomi Oreskes (published in Science, 3 Dec. 2004) of over 900 abstracts that supposedly found no articles that attributed climate change to natural causes. The study was checked but its results could not be replicated. Check out: B. Peiser. The Letter Science Magazine Rejected. Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Numbers 3-4, July 2005, pp. 685-688
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2005/00000016/F0020003/art00023"

Seriously, read the link I posted back on page 1 it completely thrashes everything you guys are saying.

[Kassad]

Yeah. Deer's link really does prove a point. Actually read it. I've seen people asking things that have already been answered about three times.

[Cronoss]

The overwheliming consensus is, gentlemen -- Chaos included -- that while most scientists do not agree on causes, end results, and so on, a few things are generally observable:

1. The Earth, since we've begun really paying attention, has gotten a fair amount hotter. Whether this will continue, whether it is aided in part by human interference, and whether it is a long-term trend or a short term anomaly, is open for debate.
2. At the same time, evidence that this warming trend is indeed a major, irreversible trend and not simply a short anomaly continues to increase. By this I do not mean that Chaos' arguments are incorrect, but that slowly and surely the 'nay' side (to any warming trend) is becoming a harder and harder position to argue. It is by far the minority position today.
3. The 'nay' side to human interference having a major impact on any warming trend is still strong, and perfectly reasonable. This is where the real global warming debate is occuring -- not on whether we are in a warming trend or not.

My own personal feelings -- especially given that I live in Canada, where we have seen major ecological changes come about as a result of huge shifts in polar temperatures, including the near-extinction of the polar bear -- are this:

1. Environmental science is such that I doubt a consensus would form even if global warming (human induced or not) was a reality as clear as 2+2=4.
2. As Chaos has pointed out, the political nature of the problem has allowed one of the most complex, vast, and variable-rich propositions in modern physical science to be cherry-picked for political purposes, or even ideological ones. I have read from global warming naysayers, for example, that litte in an Inconvenient Truth is factually wrong. But its conclusions may be completely wrong (I haven't actually seen the movie). Or they could be completely right. I think the real question is: if evidence can be skewed either way, how much are willing to do, as a precaution, in this 'murky' time period? The problem here is that the effects of global warming require political action to counteract, and thus for its proponents the issue must become politicized.
3. My editorial slant here is that just in case Gore et Al. are right, and it looks like their roster grows yearly, we would be wise to take some minimal precautions. The cost of acting on the possibility of global warming, really, is absolutely minimal compared to the potential cost of it being true. In other words, I don't see the harm in playing it safe for now until one side or the other is clear. For the most part, some of these precautions apply to things outside of Global Warming. Alternatives to Kyoto can focus on minimizing air pollution as well as greenhouse emissions — air pollution is a major reality that will only increase in importance as the gas emissions from China and India increase; protection against possible sea-level increases doubles as protection against tsunamis and floods potentially caused by underwater earthquakes and hurricanes.

[Kassad]

The overwheliming consensus is, gentlemen -- Chaos included -- that while most scientists do not agree on causes, end results, and so on, a few things are generally observable:

1. The Earth, since we've begun really paying attention, has gotten a fair amount hotter. Whether this will continue, whether it is aided in part by human interference, and whether it is a long-term trend or a short term anomaly, is open for debate.
2. At the same time, evidence that this warming trend is indeed a major, irreversible trend and not simply a short anomaly continues to increase. By this I do not mean that Chaos' arguments are incorrect, but that slowly and surely the 'nay' side (to any warming trend) is becoming a harder and harder position to argue. It is by far the minority position today.
3. The 'nay' side to human interference having a major impact on any warming trend is still strong, and perfectly reasonable. This is where the real global warming debate is occuring -- not on whether we are in a warming trend or not.

My own personal feelings -- especially given that I live in Canada, where we have seen major ecological changes come about as a result of huge shifts in polar temperatures, including the near-extinction of the polar bear -- are this:

1. Environmental science is such that I doubt a consensus would form even if global warming (human induced or not) was a reality as clear as 2+2=4.
2. As Chaos has pointed out, the political nature of the problem has allowed one of the most complex, vast, and variable-rich propositions in modern physical science to be cherry-picked for political purposes, or even ideological ones. I have read from global warming naysayers, for example, that litte in an Inconvenient Truth is factually wrong, for example, but its conclusions may be completely wrong (I haven't actually seen the movie). Or they could be completely right. I think the real question is: if evidence can be skewed either way, how much are willing to do, as a precaution, in this 'murky' time period?
3. My editorial slant here is that just in case Gore et Al. are right, and it looks like their roster grows yearly, we would be wise to take some minimal precautions. The cost of acting on the possibility of global warming, really, is absolutely minimal compared to the potential cost of it being true. In other words, I don't see the harm in playing it safe for now until one side or the other is clear. For the most part, some of these precautions apply to things outside of Global Warming. Alternatives to Kyoto can focus on minimizing air pollution as well as greenhouse emissions — air pollution is a major reality that will only increase in importance as the gas emissions from China and India increase; protection against possible sea-level increases doubles as protection against tsunamis and floods potentially caused by underwater earthquakes and hurricanes.

Right on. What I have to ask is: Do any of you really think nothing is happening? Whether you believe it's natural, human caused, or what not, it has been made quite obvious that something is happening. Until we have the time to really see what is truly going on, we should play it safe. Plus, some of the things Gore encourages are not just about Global Warming. He suggests trying to use less water, trying to find other means of travel or alternate fuels. Whatever the facts are, those are all good ideas. We need to work on conserving our environment. We need alternate fuels, not just becuase it is better for the environment, but we are running short of oil and will run out of it in the near future. Whether or not you agree with Global Warming or not, you have to understand these basic things.

[p3ngu!n]

Besides being a logical fallacy (acting as if the only issue here is 'argument whether global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate'), there is indeed argument in the scientific community.

pengy, you and your childish style of debate really aren't worth my time anymore.

I have plenty of other examples of the laughable myth that is "scientific consensus" on global warming too, in case anyone wants to read more scientists making boring remarks about global warming.Ok, dear Chaos. What else is the matter at hand here, other than the fact that global warming is ocurring at an accelerated rate? Hmm? Tell me.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."Choosing to ignore facts and very accurante studies is not childish at all. :shakehead: Especially if the data is supported worldwide, and not a single scientist behind this research disagrees with the conclusions. Kyoto is supported by practically every country in the developed world apart from China and the US. Countries which don't out of pure convenience.

The entire world is taking steps against pollution. Steps that not only decrease the rate of CO2 being launched into the atmosphere, but also bring about new jobs and advances, and more effective technologies that are not reliant on oil. Your little "no-malice" world doesn't exist, Chaos. There are bigger interests at hand here. Companies that are not ready to make the change to other sources of energy, and oil companies that provide the oil to these companies. Oil as a primary resource is no longer a reality in this world, and the US refuses to accept that because so much money would be lost by the corporations that handle said oil and companies that already looked ahead back when the problem was beginning, such as Toyota, will more easily take over. God forbid we give our people cars that pollute less and recieve much higher gas mileage. The economy would be shattered!

Change is unavoiable. Things change every fucking day. We used to move around in horses, now we move around in cars and planes. We used to kill with swords, now we kill with guns. We used to pay with gold coins, now money is digital. The US will have to change to a better and cleaner source of energy sooner or later. Delaying that will only have major drawbacks in the long run. Not only for the US's economy but also for the world's climate.

Global warming is a phenomenon that is being affected incredibly by humans. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is much more than the maximum CO2 levels recorded for the last 60,000 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm). Yes, that's the extent of research we have. Not your bullshit "100 years of semi-accurate research." The ice scientists study from Antarctica can be studied for up to 100,000 years back, who knows if more. The rain and snow that falls traps O2 and CO2 in the ice just like a lot of other gases. These gases are measured and we can accurately portray how much concentration existed in the atmosphere at any given era. Not only concentration, but the average temperature as well. This data gives us the tools to create a graph that can directly show the relationship between rising CO2 levels and the rising global temperature.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-28_climate.jpg
http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1128-climate.html
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Jesus Christ, Chaos! This isn't some bullshit hoax... Look at the facts! The inaccurate "graphs" are the prediciton models, not the HARD DATA! We are pretty much at the point of no return, who knows if past it. The ice from the Antarctic and Arctic shelfs reflect enough sun to keep us at our normal temperatures. If these were to melt, not only will the planet get warmer, the dense salt water will sink ad new fresh water enters the ocean. This will disrupt ocean currents (http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9206) and the delicate balanced transfer of warm air from the lower hemisphere to the upper hemisphere will be destroyed, probably causing another ice age.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. The evidence is more than overwhelming... I don't see why anyone would dismiss something this important. And to those who say we're "arrogant" in thinking we could disrupt this planet... think again. Before 200 years ago, humanity grew very very steadily. After 1800 we began an exponential growth that causes increased waste and pollution that the earth cannot handle, not to mention we've become (much, MUCH more markedly in our good ol' US of A) a consumerist society. We use and throw away, adding to the waste. The delicate balance the earth tried so hard to mantain as we grew steadily is destroyed, and we have to do something about it if we want to keep the ONLY home we have. You wanna know what arrogance is? Arrogance is saying "the world can handle it, I'll just keep fucking it up cause it's mine and when it blows up I'll just go somewhere else" like we've done in a small scale throughout the planet. Taking resources and moving on when they're exhausted. The difference is "going somewhere else" is a luxury we just don't have. Earth is all we've got.

[TheRabidDeer]

peng... im sorry.... but:
With respect to the second question, there is no debate whatsoever. All agree that the Kyoto Protocol is completely ineffective in changing the climate -- or even in slowing appreciably the growth of carbon dioxide. Consider that Kyoto requires a 5 percent cut in emissions (below the 1990 level) by industrialized nations only, while stabilization of CO2 requires a 60 - 80% cut worldwide -- i.e., by all nations.

Antarctic ice cores tell us that temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere have tracked closely together through recent Ice Ages, but the CO2 changes have lagged behind the temperature changes by about 800 years. Higher temperatures have produced more atmospheric CO2, rather than CO2 producing higher temperatures! That's because most of the planet's CO2 is stored in the oceans, and as the seawater warms, it can't hold as much CO2.

If CO2 is the driving climate force, why did the earth begin warming in 1850, while human CO2 emissions didn't start to really expand until about 1940? Mr. Gore doesn't tell us the answer. Why did the earth's temperatures decline from 1940 to 1975, even as CO2 emissions were soaring?

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "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."

Seriously guys, no matter what side of the argument you are on, READ THE LINK I POSTED!

[p3ngu!n]

:dot: About the 450 million years ago bit... even if you could prove that, it does more to prove rather than disprove the predictions. Rising CO2 levels melts the ice, disrupting ocean currents, and ultimately causing the ice age you speak of. And human CO2 emissions have been soaring since the 1800's. What you're speaking of is the US's emissions, which began to rise dramatically after World War 2.

I found this amusing:
Gore repeatedly labels carbon dioxide as "global-warming pollution" when, in reality, it is no more pollution than is oxygen. CO2 is plant food, an ingredient essential for photosynthesis, without which Earth would be a lifeless, frozen ice ball. The hypothesis that human release of CO2 is a major contributor to global warming is just that -- an unproven hypothesis, against which evidence is increasingly mounting.
Yeah, plant food. Vastly increasing CO2 levels and vastly depleting the world's forests is definitely something to look at. The amazon is being torn down much faster than it can regrow. So are many many forests across the world. How is this CO2 to be turned back into O2 without the trees to "eat" it?

[Chaos]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

I didn't actually read anything pengy wrote in his last post, but if you want an accurate picture about the "scientific consensus" on global warming and Al Gore's propaganda film, there's a link for you.

Scientific consenus on global warming is just another lie from the Peak Oil/Overpopulation/Global warming/whatever other certain future catastrophe that is threatening human existence that always requires an end to capitalism to solve crowd.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.

Doesn't exactly sound like a member of the "scientific consensus" people like pengy and DM always refer to.

Maybe the oil companies bribed MIT to make this obvious propagandist a professor there, and bribed all those other scientists who aren't a part of the "scientific consensus" on global warming and any of the other Catastrophe of the Moment issues.

Because when you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

[p3ngu!n]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

I didn't actually read anything pengy wrote in his last post, but if you want an accurate picture about the "scientific consensus" on global warming and Al Gore's propaganda film, there's a link for you.

Scientific consenus on global warming is just another lie from the Peak Oil/Overpopulation/Global warming/whatever other certain future catastrophe that is threatening human existence that always requires an end to capitalism to solve crowd.



Doesn't exactly sound like a member of the "scientific consensus" people like pengy and DM always refer to.

Maybe the oil companies bribed MIT to make this obvious propagandist a professor there, and bribed all those other scientists who aren't a part of the "scientific consensus" on global warming and any of the other Catastrophe of the Moment issues.

Because when you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
I haven't attacked a single messenger. I posted hard facts. You didn't even bother to read my post, so I'll presume you chose to ignore the inconvenient facts. The ratio of scientists that support the hard data versus those that don't is... an overwhelming amount : very few. This is not about "capitalism," "the Bush administration," or any other "propaganda bullshit to take down the republican government and destroy capitalism." This is about causing drastic changes in our way of life to save humanity from MAJOR sudden weather changes. If you would have read my post you would have seen that a change in our way of life (switching to cleaner sources of energy, researching clean technology) can bring drastic economic advantages in the long run, and not changing our way of life (dependency on oil) will bring major problems to our economy in the long run (actually sooner than later).

Yes... Chaos. I want to take down capitalism. That's the reason for global warming. Capitalism is a threat to the world. When the planet blows up in your face, I wanna know what you're going to do with those 100 bucks in your wallet... cause the bank you have the rest in is probably gone (not that it matters). The economy is just as much in danger as the environment... except we can recover the economy. Once we destroy our home, we don't get it back.

Oh, and you're wonderful MIT professor... I wouldn't be surprised if he got paid to say global warming is a hoax. But... nah! Those things don't happen in the real world, do they!?

[Cronoss]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

I didn't actually read anything pengy wrote in his last post, but if you want an accurate picture about the "scientific consensus" on global warming and Al Gore's propaganda film, there's a link for you.

Scientific consenus on global warming is just another lie from the Peak Oil/Overpopulation/Global warming/whatever other certain future catastrophe that is threatening human existence that always requires an end to capitalism to solve crowd.



Doesn't exactly sound like a member of the "scientific consensus" people like pengy and DM always refer to.

Maybe the oil companies bribed MIT to make this obvious propagandist a professor there, and bribed all those other scientists who aren't a part of the "scientific consensus" on global warming and any of the other Catastrophe of the Moment issues.

Because when you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

Lindzen's essentially the central respected, high-profile global warming doubter. The other side has about 400 Lindzen's. My point: the conensus is very quickly shifting toward the global warming camp as more and more batches of evidence exceed what we would call 'normal' variation in weather change. Even if global warming turns out to be all chaff and paranoia, I think it is better to prepare than to sit around and do nothing, especially when the cost of prepation can be so minimal and has beneficial side-effects.

I understand your 'anti-capitalism' point. There will always be anti-capitalists on the left. They will always use capitalism's most sour points to argue against it. This is unfortunate, but the natural product of a democratized global village. The real 'scientific consensus' (or whatever.. lump) that agreed with global warming is not arguing an end to capitalism. In many cases, Kyoto is even seen as excessive, or missing the boat. In Canada, for example, we have a conservative government that understands that to win a majority they have to address global warming on some nominal level. They threw out Kyoto and adopted a more realistic, cost-effective plan, while allowing the provinces room to adop Kyoto if they wanted to. This is really isn't hard to do, and the consequences of not doing it could potentially be dire.

[Chaos]

My point: the conensus is very quickly shifting toward the global warming camp as more and more batches of evidence exceed what we would call 'normal' variation in weather change.

I don't like how people take scientific data that says what is occurring and then proceed to assert why it is occurring and act like the data they have backs them up.

Ok, dear Chaos. What else is the matter at hand here, other than the fact that global warming is ocurring at an accelerated rate? Hmm? Tell me.

1. Humanity's contribution (or lack thereof) to "climate change."
2. The desirability of trying to slow "climate change."
3. The capability of humanity to slow "climate change."

Number one is a matter of serious debate (something you're incapable of), number two is also a matter of serious debate, and number three is dependent largely on numebr one but not entirely (even if we reduced human-produced greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, would it make a difference at this point?).

This is about causing drastic changes in our way of life to save humanity from MAJOR sudden weather changes.

http://chronicle.com/free/2005/09/2005090803n.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002084541_warm07.html

Your pseudoscience is starting to get really annoying pengy.

Yes... Chaos. I want to take down capitalism. That's the reason for global warming. Capitalism is a threat to the world. When the planet blows up in your face, I wanna know what you're going to do with those 100 bucks in your wallet... cause the bank you have the rest in is probably gone (not that it matters). The economy is just as much in danger as the environment... except we can recover the economy. Once we destroy our home, we don't get it back.

At least you admitted it.

This is the kind of hysterical babbling I'm talking about - the continued existence of humanity on this planet is not in any danger whatsoever from global warming.

Period. End of discussion. That's it. Certainly there could be major harm done to human civilization, if the worse-case scenarios (based on admittedly faulty computer models) come to pass.

This apocalyptic raving serves the interests of no one. People like pengy are mentally unbalanced. He wouldn't be surprised if Lindzen was bought and paid for by some sinister capitalist cabal - sure pengy. Sure. Is there any reason why you seemingly can't accept the fact that some people disagree with you? Are you that insecure that you have to assume that dissent is the result of external pressures on someone as opposed to them, you know, simply disagreeing?

The first pseudoscientific scare socialists latched onto was overpopulation and how there were going to be too many of us and not enough food and that this would inevitably lead to our species's downfall. That theory was shot down a while ago, since they were talking about all this occurring by the end of the twentieth century.

Today the big boys are peak oil and global warming. In thirty years it'll be some othe damn thing, with peak oil and global warming nothing more than curious historical topics our grandchildren will read about in college and laugh at us for getting so worked up over. Before they leave class to go to protest about whatever silly fantasy they'll have to get themselves worked up over.

pengy's fearmongering would be more convincing if he hadn't already told us repeatedly in the past how capitalism is allegedly responsible for all number of terrible or allegedly terrible things. Am I supposed to believe capitalism is bad because of exploitation of the masses? Or am I supposed to believe it's bad because of global warming? Or peak oil? Maybe we should just have a form like this;

_____ is bad and capitalism is to blame.

We could even provide a list of bad things in case pengy runs through his mental list (everything from stubbing his toe on the bedpost in the morning to not being able to go to that party because he has to study) of bad things capitalism is responsible for. Because think: if capitalism wasn't around, would pengy have a bedpost to stub his toe on? Probably not. And if capitalism wasn't around, would pengy really need to get an education? Probably not.

Damn capitalism. =/

[p3ngu!n]

Your sense of sarcasm seriously sucks. 'Nuff said. I'm incapable of serious debate, yet you ignored an entire page of text written by me. Don't get so cocky Chaos, you're not so far off. Eloquence does not make you the better debater, let alone put you in the side that's correct. And about "dissent" ... oh my I haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Yes, I believe everyone who disagrees with me was bought out by big corporations. Wait, let me put [/sarcasm] so you don't miss it. Ok, back to this. That little comment makes me doubt your capability for serious debate.

I don't blame capitalism for global warming. Your attacks are misplaced and very very wrong. Global warming is due to humanity's inability to accept NECESSARY change that could hinder economies and cripple companies that distribute oil. Not something I care for because the problem has been warned about for decades. Making some changes back when you still could would have saved you today. Company leaders with enough neurons made the necessary changes to research and develop different technologies. Now those companies already have one foot inside a new world of clean technology (and will probably lead sales in this new world) while others are still struggling to open that door. If only everyone had listened, we would have made a seamless transition, and the economy would have probably even turned out BETTER.

Shut your yap hole, and read my posts before attacking me. You're starting to sound like you talk out of your ass...