Global Warming

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by FastFwd
Granted, that's what a lot of the shouting is about, but is not the important issue.

Actually, that's entirely what it's about.  Unfortunently too many globalwarmingists have equated natural warming of the planet (itself a debatable subject) with "man-made" global warming (an absolutely unproven theory) making them one in the same for political purposes.  Worse though, in your case, it doesn't matter if the warming is being caused by man or nature, you think we should do something anyway.  Sort of like not liking darkness and then demanding the human race pool it's resources to end night.

I agree almost entirely! Except that if it's a natural fluctuation, you're saying that there's not much we can do. I agree that there's not much we can do about what NATURE is doing, but there's a great deal we can do about what WE are doing, and thereby offset what nature is doing in order to get atmospheric CO2 concentrations to within safe levels.

 Within safe levels???  You're kidding right?  There is no proof that CO2 is a problem at all and man's contribution to it is a tiny fraction of the total CO2.  CO2 has risen and fallen in synchronization with the Earth's temperature for as far as we can record but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever as to which is the cause and which is the effect.  Right now they have traced one of the largest contributors of CO2 to melting permafrost in Siberia.  As the earth warms (as it has since the end of the Little Ice Age) permafrost softens and releases stored CO2.  This release of CO2 is not CAUSING the warming, it is the RESULT of warming.

The denialists' stance seems to be one of "if Nature is responsible for even a tiny amount of global warming, then the tens of billions of tons of carbon that mankind releases into the atmosphere doesn't make any difference".

There's the rub, nature isn't responsible for "even a tiny amount of global warming" it is by far the greatest cause and always has been.  Your argument is actually: "if Man is responsible for even a tiny amount of global warming then we should place the world economy at risk to correct that tiny amount."  

At a recent science conference involving 2000 scientists from nearly 200 countries, the collective opinion was that man is 90% to blame for the warming and climate change we see today.

 The collective opinion of scientists is that if everyone signed onto Kyoto we'd reduce global warming by .7 degress C in 50 years.  The collective opinion of scientists also used to be that the world is flat.  The collective opinion of scientists used to be that the world is cooling.  The collective opinion of scientists used to be that dirt was good because it sealed the pores and kept germs out.  The collective opinion of scientists is that someone needs to give them funding so they can further develop theories that justify yet more funding.

And - are you under 25 by any chance? - just curious

Ad hominum attacks are the last refuge of those lacking a substantive argument.

No, he has also posted pics of Arctic meltdown taken from space, and which cover an area of hundreds of thousands of square miles, if not more.

You mean the pictures of the melting that has gone on since the end of the Little Ice Age?  Let me ask you another question, what's worse global warming or cooling?  All of the major advances of global civilization have occured during warming periods.  The Roman warming, the Middle Ages and Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.  The cooling periods are when things were bad such as the Dark Ages so, even assuming the Earth is still warming, why again is that a bad thing???  Oh yeah, the sea's going to drown us all.  From Al Gore's "20 Feet" to the previous IPCC report claiming 36 INCHES to it's current report now claiming only 17 INCHES.

I don't think that scientific conference was held to discuss the local weather - do you?

Actually, it's probably more related to politics, panic and funding than accuracy.

No Lazs2, the answers are already forthcoming. Of course, we must wait to see if the world population as a whole is prepared to listen. If the people in this thread are anything to go by, I'd say there's a 50-50 chance.

The chances that the "world" will attempt to "solve" the theory of man-made global warming is very small.  Thank God for that.

[FastFwd]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Well his analogy is stupid for sure, comparing global warming to a burning house on the info we have is rather alarmist and silly. In fact it is just more scare mongering.  

Comparing? I was not comparing anything. Learn the difference between an analogy and a comparison. And... this denialist taunt that the belief that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that exacerbates global warming constitutes some form of religion is perfectly ridiculous.

Mace

Actually, that's entirely what it's about.

I disagree. The research into what can be done to counter the effects of global warming is a scientific study, not a blame apportionment exercise.

Worse though, in your case, it doesn't matter if the warming is being caused by man or nature, you think we should do something anyway.

I agree. When your house is on fire, the most pressing matter is to get the fire put out - not stand around asking who caused it.

Within safe levels??? You're kidding right? There is no proof that CO2 is a problem at all and man's contribution to it is a tiny fraction of the total CO2. CO2 has risen and fallen in synchronization with the Earth's temperature for as far as we can record but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever as to which is the cause and which is the effect. Right now they have traced one of the largest contributors of CO2 to melting permafrost in Siberia. As the earth warms (as it has since the end of the Little Ice Age) permafrost softens and releases stored CO2. This release of CO2 is not CAUSING the warming, it is the RESULT of warming.

There is plenty of proof that CO2 (along with methane, water vapor, plus a few others) is a greenhouse gas that traps the earth's heat instead of allowing it to be radiated back into space.

How do you know how tiny man's contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is? Do you have any figures? I've read that CO2 is at its highest level for over 600,000 years. It's funny that this period coincides with the burning of fossil fuels at a rate never seen at any time before the industrial revolution.

There's the rub, nature isn't responsible for "even a tiny amount of global warming" it is by far the greatest cause and always has been. Your argument is actually: "if Man is responsible for even a tiny amount of global warming then we should place the world economy at risk to correct that tiny amount."

I don't believe that, and neither did that assembly of 2000 scientists from ~200 countries at a conference in Paris a few weeks ago. The conclusion they arrived at was that there was a 90% chance that man was causing global warming. Now, who do I choose to believe: 1) a panel of scientists who work full time studying climatology and global warming, or 2) a couple of guys in the AH O club? Hmmm, I think I'll go with (1) - no offence to you or your buddies.

I asked you how old you are, and if you were under 25, which I suspect you are. Your response was

Ad hominum attacks are the last refuge of those lacking a substantive argument.

It wasn't an attack - it was merely a question.

You mean the pictures of the melting that has gone on since the end of the Little Ice Age?

No, the pictures of the melting that has gone on since 1979.

Actually, it's probably more related to politics, panic and funding than accuracy.

I doubt that it's a political issue, given that the scientists came from 200 different countries. If it was about politics, which party are they all affiliated to?

The chances that the "world" will attempt to "solve" the theory of man-made global warming is very small. Thank God for that.

Efforts are being made around the world to cut back on carbon emissions. Some countries are boosting the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power. There's work being done to develop "carbon neutral" fuels. I dare say this work will go ahead, whether you believe it's necessary or not. And when the efforts of these projects are rewarded by a reduction of Co2 so that an ecological crisis is averted, you'll be able to crow that you were right, and that there never was any threat of global catastrophe.

[lazs2]

wait a minute... you are now saying that there is a 90% chance that man is causing global warming?  give me the link... that statement leaves a lot to the imagination...

Does it mean we are causing all the global warming or that they think there is a 90% chance that we have some effect?  how much effect?  is there 100% chance that nature is causing "significant" or "massive" global warming?  

How much of the warming is caused by man and... if we are indeed at the end of a global warming trend.. if we are entering a global cooling trend.. What do you want to do about that?   How do we solve global cooling..

where do we send our money?

lazs

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by FastFwd
I asked you how old you are, and if you were under 25, which I suspect you are. Your response was  It wasn't an attack - it was merely a question.
 No, the pictures of the melting that has gone on since 1979.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.You chose to imply I'm too young to know what I'm talking about in spite of the fact that you have no evidence to support that allegation.  Of course, since you're a true believer in global warming, evidence isn't really necessary is it?

[FastFwd]

Originally posted by lazs2
wait a minute... you are now saying that there is a 90% chance that man is causing global warming?  give me the link... that statement leaves a lot to the imagination...

Does it mean we are causing all the global warming or that they think there is a 90% chance that we have some effect?  how much effect?  is there 100% chance that nature is causing "significant" or "massive" global warming?    

Lazs2 - I didn't say it - a panel of scientists said it. You wanted a link - start here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/02/news/climate.php

There is no question that this is driven by human activity," said Susan Solomon, one of the panel's leaders. She noted that in calling the link "very likely" scientists had increased certainty on a connection from their previous estimate of 66 percent to 90 percent.

Mace2004

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.You chose to imply I'm too young to know what I'm talking about in spite of the fact that you have no evidence to support that allegation. Of course, since you're a true believer in global warming, evidence isn't really necessary is it?

Well that's interesting that you now know so much about "ad hominem", considering the first time you couldn't even spell it. Now you're calling it an "argument". Last time, it was an "attack".

No, it is not an attack, and it's not an attempt to discredit you because you are young. But as I journey through life, I notice that twenty-somethings (and younger) often take the "it's not my responsibility - it's someone else's problem" stance, which is what you're doing in this thread.

Again, you're trying to make my "belief in global warming" sound like a religion which, of course, is nonsense. You even said yourself

The earth has been warming up since the end of the little ice age from 1300 to 1850.

CO2 and water vapor trap the earth's heat. That's why clear winter nights are colder than nights when there is cloud cover. Please tell me what this concept has to do with religion.

Take your time though. I'm gone thru the weekend.

Hmmm... a little birdie sitting on my shoulder is whispering "Mace2004 = Morpheus".

[Torque]

it's all fun and games...until fundamentalist polar bears try to acquire norwegian yellow cake. then treasures of blood and gold will be thrown at the problem.

in the mean time, i'll embrace the warmer cilmate with no regret or guilt.

[lazs2]

so the report doesn't say anything...

Oh it says that they are almost certain that man can have some effect on climate...  I am 100% sure that if I pee in the ocean it will have "drive" the ocean getting saltier.

Where are the numbers?  tell me what will happen next year if we don't change a thing.   Then lets see if they know what they are talking about... tell me exactly what will happen in two years and then lets wait and see if they are right.

The farmers almanac is more right about the weather for next year than every "climatologist" on record.

How much effect are we having?   I keep asking but no one answers.  

If we do nothing what will happen in the next 50 years?   If we all slit our throats this afternoon what would happen to the climate in the next 50 years?

Hell..  I want to see an accurate prediction for next year.   they all claimed more hurricanes for this year..  we had less.   They claimed less ice pack.. we have the same or more.

How often do they have to be wrong or.. worm out of any real answers before you acolades... you man made global warming religious nutjobs start to ask these questions?

None of you care what the answers are.   None of you care to doubt... no matter what they say... no matter how outlandish.. you simply accept it... you don't ask for more proof... you don't ask for anything ironclad  "we believe" is plenty good for you if the guy saying it has a degree in something....often, nothing to do with climate.

oboe is excepted since he does at least take some of it with a grain of salt.

lazs

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by FastFwd
Well that's interesting that you now know so much about "ad hominem", considering the first time you couldn't even spell it. Now you're calling it an "argument". Last time, it was an "attack".

No, it is not an attack, and it's not an attempt to discredit you because you are young. But as I journey through life, I notice that twenty-somethings (and younger) often take the "it's not my responsibility - it's someone else's problem" stance, which is what you're doing in this thread.

Again, you're trying to make my "belief in global warming" sound like a religion which, of course, is nonsense. You even said yourself

CO2 and water vapor trap the earth's heat. That's why clear winter nights are colder than nights when there is cloud cover. Please tell me what this concept has to do with religion.

Take your time though. I'm gone thru the weekend.

Hmmm... a little birdie sitting on my shoulder is whispering "Mace2004 = Morpheus".

You're really not very bright now are you FF?   Your belief that I'm less than 25 years old is as asinine and baseless as your belief that we need to "solve" global warming even if it isn't man made.  As I said before, it takes little evidence or proof to convince ye of faith.

If you are the "mature" individual you claim to be than your maturity and experience should also have brought a degree of healthy skepticism.  I guess you haven't reached that level yet or your "faith" prevents you from seeing the world as it is.  Perhaps you were just a gleam in your papa's eye the last round when it was global cooling as the disaster de jour.  Maybe you are unaware that alarmists also said we'd be out of fuel by 1990?  Maybe you're unaware of "nuclear winter"?  How about all the people that would be thrown on the street and children that would starve due to welfare reform?  Healthy skepticism of the latest "trendy" calamity is more of a mark of intelligence and maturity than immaturity as you contend.  But then again, there's that "faith" of yours so you must attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't kowtow to your beliefs.

[Mace2004]

For all those that claim "solving" global warming won't cost us anything:

Holdren, however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. "We don't think ultimately society will get it right in terms of the full range and scope of activities needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, until there is an additional incentive in the form of a price on greenhouse gas emissions, either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade approach," he said.

The link is here. I also love this salamander's arrogance in the line "we don't think ultimately society will get it right..." and follow his lead unless they're punished by taxes.  Typical left-wing view of the world.  Taxes are not new to Holden, he's been one of those that believes that fuel taxes should be raised (as does Al Gore) specifically to make fuel unaffordable to force society to conform to his theories and beliefs.   Holdren also wrote a polemic in the '70's calling to "de-develop the US" and claiming that up to one billion people could die by 2020 due to climate change. He also wrote a review of Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" in which he called Lomborg "unrepentant".  Sounds like a little "faith based" bashing to me.

Again, for those that believe "solving" global warming wouldn't cost much, think about what would happen when guys like these get their way.

[SteveBailey]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Global warming  *snicker*


So many global warming band wagon jumpers.  I am going to enjoy their next subject of fanaticism once they get over the global warming trend.

Fools and those that follow them.... "*snicker*



         

[Curval]

In case you are not aware this is the United States Official Policy on Climate Control:

The United States Federal government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change. This policy has three basic objectives:

Slowing the growth of emissions
Strengthening science, technology and institutions
Enhancing international cooperation

The Federal government is implementing this policy through voluntary and incentive-based programs and has established major government-wide programs to advance climate technologies and improve climate science.

Source

I suggest you all write the EPA and tell them how wrong they are.

[lazs2]

curval... the EPA has a history of being wrong....  We have a lot of MTBE poisoned water here as a result of their "hurry up and do something even if it is wrong"

This guy is now telling you that he duped you... he is the founder of the "man made global warming" religion..

"Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."


The guy who founded your religion is saying "ooops... guess I overreacted"

lazs

[Sabre]

Prominent French Scientist turns skeptic:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Countering Al Gore’s propaganda piece:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965

and

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[Curval]

It's not my religion at all.

Funny how, in this or another Global Warming thread, we were discussing alternative sources of power and Mav (another gung-ho member of the Church of Denialism..or Church of Anti-Gore) insisted that the alternatives I presented needed to be studied and environmental impact studies done by the EPA.

In some instances they are needed and yet apparently they get it wrong.

[john9001]

we need more MBTE in our gasoline, yeah baby.