Global Warming

[socal swimmer]

So by your reasoning, the quality of life in Saudi Arabia (no. 18) is much better than that of Switzerland (no. 69)?

 

Let's see if your claims are true by taking a look at the Human Development Index (HDI)

Switzerland is 7th and Saudi Arabia is 61st!

 

It seems your claim of CO2 emissions per capita being proportional to development is complete nonsense.

 

Money doesn't give off CO2

 

that is a good point.

 

But, it would be much harder to industrialize an entire nation while at the same time trying to reduce emissions. Burning coal and oil is one of the easiest ways to generate energy, in terms of technology and skill (of the labor force) required. China isn't exactly bursting with skilled labor or scientists....

[Paranoid Marvin]

that is a good point.

 

But, it would be much harder to industrialize an entire nation while at the same time trying to reduce emissions. Burning coal and oil is one of the easiest ways to generate energy, in terms of technology and skill (of the labor force) required. China isn't exactly bursting with skilled labor or scientists....

 

I'm sure you'll find it's the opposite, and it is improving quickly.

 

You seem to have this idea that everyone in China lives in the deepest darkest Himalayas and grows rice in their paddy field. Although many do, on average, China is quickly becoming a developed country.

It's not a case of everyone having to have the same level of development and removing inequalities (that's nearly impossible, just look at America). As long as the people at the top are able to go green, it'll filter down.

 

I would place money on Chinese ingenuity and efficiency to be the major driving force in eco friendly practices. By that mean that when China gets on board, they will be able to mass produce so many things such as solar panels etc much cheaper than we can, and help to lower the small cost of going green.

[lord_muad_dib]

in only 100 years we {censored}ed up our planet and you still think that something can be done about it?

 

what a laugh....

[wildcat69410]

From my perspective, "Global Warming" appears to be far more of a natural phenomenon of shifting temperatures than a cataclysmic climate shift caused by human beings. Historically speaking, climate change of this magnitude is far from unprecedented. According to Dr. Nathan Paldor, a Professor of Dynamical Meteorology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (increases and decreases) of magnitude similar to that reported by the IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial Revolution (about 0.8C or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

 

Furthermore, there is virtually no cause and effect relationship between "greenhouse gases" and temperature. According to Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and an author of 300 studies and 9 books, stated, "Even if the concentration of greenhouse gases double, man would not perceive the temperature impact.".

 

These two distinguished scientists aren't alone in voicing their opposing viewpoints on global warming. They are merely 2 of over 400 who participated in the U.S. Senate Report on Global Warming. All of those involved were experts of their related field, like climatology, geology, biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, oceanography, economics, chemistry, mathematics, environmental sciences, engineering, physics and paleoclimatology.

 

It seems to me that the majority of the hype surrounding "Global Warming" comes from media figures who have little knowledge of what they're saying. Furthermore, even the scientific community itself is rather hostile to those opposing the view that "Global Warming" is an eminent problem. Many scientists who express their opinion are shunned, or even worse (at least from a financial perspective) lose grants that they are reliant upon to complete groundbreaking research. From a very cynical point of view, it seems that many scientists are willing to "blow the horn" of "Global Warming" so to speak in order to obtain grant money for their own purposes. True or not, there's something very wrong when a community so proud of their open-minded ability to reason to find the truth turns so hostile towards that very same ideal.

 

Ironically, this very same media-frenzied hype has occurred before. For the older readers of this forum, perhaps you will recall the June 24, 1974 Time Magazine cover proclaiming onset of the next ice age. Utilizing similar "environmental data", scientists and media outlets alike criticized poor environmental practices by linking them to a sudden drop in worldwide temperatures that, unless immediate action was taken, would inevitably render the earth incapable of providing the resources necessary to sustain the current human population. Man, what a joke!

 

Now, of course hindsight is always 20/20, but can anyone else see how this very same series of events is being played out today? The only thing that's changed is that the world is now heating instead of cooling. Sure, we can make enormous changes to lower the emission of "greenhouse gases". We can take away all cars, establish strict regulations, treat operating an internal combustion engine like a criminal offense. However, even with those changes in place, the Earth's temperature isn't going to suddenly cool down. In fact, equal doses of science and probability tells us that the next 15, 20, 50, or even 100 years could bring hotter temperatures, cooler temperatures, and anything in-between.

 

Quite simply, I don't understand the logic of throwing enormous resources towards solving a crisis that doesn't exist. Especially considering the fact that there are far more important issues facing the World today. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if, in 30 or so years, the world looks back on "Global Warming" for what it really is: a natural phenomenon. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Ed D]

[Paranoid Marvin]

 

What a brilliant video, thanks for posting it

[wildcat69410]

That video represents a lot of the "cataclysmic hype" I've just talked about. His entire argument focuses on how it's better to be "safe than sorry", by presenting a list of clear cut conclusions if "Global Warming" is allowed to continue. On that list is hurricanes, flooding, all kinds of garbage. It's kind of funny that he mentions hurricanes, as after Hurricane Katrina, the United States has experienced fairly weak Hurricane seasons. If the world were rapidly heating, as "Global Warming" would tell us, then why aren't the Hurricane seasons increasing in intensity?

 

As for flooding, Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit." He went on to say, in response to the growing number of activists who are pushing for CO2 regulations, "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

 

The video utilizes the weight of two scientific institutions to "prove" just how serious "Global Warming" is. He then proceeds to declare the scientists opposing it "merely a handful". What he carefully ignores is that this "handful", if 400 people and counting could be considered as such, hails from some of the world's most distinguished scientific institutes including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. Plus, I'm always prone to argue for an individual's reputation far over the reputation of a group of people. Especially considering the reputations already garnered by the scientists who stepped forward in the Senate report.

 

As for the private companies who are setting their own regulations, it doesn't prove anything. He tries to use it to "move the line upward" and show how real "Global Warming" actually is. However, it's far more likely that these companies are taking advantage of how "environmentally sensitive" the consumer base has become. Honestly, how many of us have seen the commercials on TV proclaiming a company's involvement in become a better contributor to the environment? It's not that they necessarily believe in its effects, but its that they recognize a national movement when they see one.

 

His whole "risk management" square is rather interesting, if not a little misleading. No one really knows the large consequences of "Global Warming", so he utilizes the scariest of the conjectures to make his point. Is flooding possible, sure. Will sea levels suddenly rise and engulf the eastern seaboard? Unlikely. Will Hurricanes gain in number and intensity? As we've already seen, unlikely. Plus it's important to realize that in all likelihood, action will have no consequence on the natural shift in temperature at all! If it's something that's entirely unaffected by man-made efforts, then why should we spend billions in an effort to change the conclusion of a scenario that is unavoidable. If the world is heating rapidly (which it really isn't), then there's really nothing we can do about it. Sure, we can reduce our emissions so we can have a clear conscious when it does happen, but that won't solve the problem.

 

Personally, is whole "risk management" sequence reminds me a lot of Pascal's wager. Similar mechanics, similar logic, entirely different subjects. Yet, you don't exactly see a lot of God fearing Christians on this board, do you? I just find it ironic that so many people are rushing to follow one and disregard the other.

 

In closing, that video doesn't really present a lot against my argument. In a scientific sense, it does nothing to prove or disprove the points I presented in my previous post. His entire argument is focused on "what if?" scenarios, which are exaggerated and misconstrued. Furthermore, his consequences for action in the event that "Global Warming" doesn't exist are pitifully small. He completely disregards the events that will be ignored if "Global Warming" is moved to the world's top priority. Like he illustrates at the end of the video, throwing all those events to the side only makes sense if "Global Warming" is an eminent threat. If it isn't, how many years will we waste trying to solve a non-existent problem? How many lives will be lost through genocides, conflicts, diseases, etc. before the world will drop its obsession with "Global Warming" and solve the real issues?

 

Simply put, we can't afford to let "Global Warming" become a scapegoat through which all other worldly issues can be avoided and thrown aside. We simply can't.

[A Nonny Moose]

Granted, you could have meant something entirely different.

 

What exactly DO you think we ought to do?

 

We need a true global approach, not something that says "You get a 'free pass' because you're a developing country, but the developed countries have to remove this." That approach will do nothing more than shift the "carbon footprint" and we'll have the exact same problem, only it's shifted somewhere else.

 

Now I know countries won't get a literal free pass, but if you're going to say one group gets better treatment than the other one, you are giving them a figurative free pass. If people are that serious about reducing CO2, we need to do it and not do this shifting in the name of "carbon credits."

 

If saving the environment is the top priority, then everything else (including development) should take a back seat until the top priority is done. The way it's being done now is that the environment is secondary to developing the world.

[Ed D]

@ Paranoid Marvin

 

You're welcome.

 

 

@ wildcat69410

 

Then you can't see the forest for the trees, Wildcat.

 

First off, you are arguing a "what if" scenario too, it just runs contrary to his "what if."

 

Second, all the other issues you cite become moot if no one survives to do anything about them.

 

You argue that he used all the scariest scenarios to make his point. Irronically, he hasn't. The scariest scenario is one of the planetary capacity of our planet to support life. Right now, some scientists estimate the present capacity to be about 8 billion humans, and we are already at 6 billion. Change in the planetary climate can affect the planet's capacity to support life, and such changes have occurred in the past without any help from man. This means the point regarding the current climate trend and man's involvement is irrelevant.

 

The question becomes one of whether or not Global Warming will increase or decrease the planet's capacity to support us. Given that the deserts have been growing since the last ice age, I'm inclined to believe that there will eventually be decreased capacity.

 

But that's not the nightmare scenario. It's been said that "revolution is only an empty stomach away" and that's exactly what would happen should the planet's capacity drop below the present population, not "revolution" but, rather, chaos, as all the peoples of the Earth begin fighting each other for resources. Things could get really ugly for man.

 

Worse still, look to Mars and Venus. In Mars' case we have a case of global cooling gone too far; in Venus' case, we have global warming out of control; and in either case neither can support us no matter how hard we try. Either planet's capacity rates at 0. Period.

 

You see, hurricanes, flooding storms are peanuts if this planet suddenly loses it's ability to sustain us. And the planets ability has fluctuated many times in the past without any help from us and destroying the dominant life forms of that time.

 

You say it's a "better safe than sorry" argument and you're right, but if you expect the rest of us to be willing to take the same risk as you... well, then you're just wrong.

 

Ed.

[socal swimmer]

so far all that I have seen is a lot of long winded rants, similar to the 9/11 thread. The only shred of anything tangible is wildcat's post about those two scientists.

 

However, what do we really have? Two credible scientists vs the vast majority (including the top ones of the IPCC)?

 

Just because a couple dissent does not mean that the majority is wrong. And I don't think that anyone doubts the fact that the majority agree with the IPCC's version of global warming.

[wildcat69410]

Then you can't see the forest for the trees, Wildcat.

 

First off, you are arguing a "what if" scenario too, it just runs contrary to his "what if."

 

Second, all the other issues you cite become moot if no one survives to do anything about them.

 

You argue that he used all the scariest scenarios to make his point. Irronically, he hasn't. The scariest scenario is one of the planetary capacity of our planet to support life. Right now, some scientists estimate the present capacity to be about 8 billion humans, and we are already at 6 billion. Change in the planetary climate can affect the planet's capacity to support life, and such changes have occurred in the past without any help from man. This means the point regarding the current climate trend and man's involvement is irrelevant.

 

The question becomes one of whether or not Global Warming will increase or decrease the planet's capacity to support us. Given that the deserts have been growing since the last ice age, I'm inclined to believe that there will eventually be decreased capacity.

 

That's just the kind of cataclysmic scaremongering I'm talking about. Whenever anyone brings up another issue, or claims that "Global Warming" isn't as eminent as they believe, they instantly switch into a "nobody survives" scenario. Screw Darfur, screw the AIDS epidemic, forget poverty, forget all of that. Who cares about that, because in several hundred years, the world may no longer support life! Brilliant!

 

Okay, so deserts are growing, but are they growing at an out of control rate? Is there anything to suggest that the past 100 years has seen greater temperature variance than centuries before? Not really. French Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon states, "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!" There is nothing that points to out of control climate change. As I've stated previously, the change in temperature over the past century falls along the standard average of years past!

 

But that's not the nightmare scenario. It's been said that "revolution is only an empty stomach away" and that's exactly what would happen should the planet's capacity drop below the present population, not "revolution" but, rather, chaos, as all the peoples of the Earth begin fighting each other for resources. Things could get really ugly for man.

 

Worse still, look to Mars and Venus. In Mars' case we have a case of global cooling gone too far; in Venus' case, we have global warming out of control; and in either case neither can support us no matter how hard we try. Either planet's capacity rates at 0. Period.

 

For your "nightmare scenario", there's no real evidence to suggest that the Earth is suddenly going to lose its capacity to sustain life. Sure, we're growing towards that 8 billion person limit, but there's not an ounce of proof that some cataclysmic "light switch" is going to be flipped, reducing the Earth's capacity to 4 billion instantly. Honestly, there are about a dozen things that are more likely to cause worldwide chaos than Global Warming. Epidemics, rogue Nuclear Weapons, terrorism, anything! Yet we're supposed to dump billions of dollars of resources into stopping "Global Warming"? Even worse, the evidence out there suggests that, if anything, this is a natural occurrence that man cannot control!

 

Interesting that you point out Mars and Venus as examples of "Global Warming". Especially seeing as there's no intelligent life attributing to or preventing the phenomenon to occur. In fact, as both planets are experiencing rising temperatures in similar variations as Earth, it can be reasonably concluded that "Global Warming" may have to do with an attribute that all planets share. Their relationship to the sun. Perhaps rising temperatures are due to some galactic factor that we haven't yet taken into account. Regardless, it's clear that the rising temperatures on Venus and Mars have little to do with man-made CO2 .

 

You see, hurricanes, flooding storms are peanuts if this planet suddenly loses it's ability to sustain us. And the planets ability has fluctuated many times in the past without any help from us and destroying the dominant life forms of that time.

 

You say it's a "better safe than sorry" argument and you're right, but if you expect the rest of us to be willing to take the same risk as you... well, then you're just wrong.

 

Exactly! Earth's temperature has fluctuated many times in the past, naturally! Regardless of the CO2 man emits, it's going to fluctuate. In fact the Earth has experienced temperatures much higher than this multiple times throughout History! However, the past several million years illustrates a decrease in the variability of the temperatures (lower highs and higher lows). Even with those variations as a precedent, there's no evidence to suggest that temperatures are rising in an unnatural fashion. Furthermore, there's no evidence to suggest that man-made factors are causing this increase. The mere fact that it has occurred before, without the help of man, makes me think that it's simply a natural fluctuation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Again, the same "cataclysmic risk" argument. I'm sorry, but even the IPCC doesn't suggest that the Earth is suddenly going to lose capacity for life. It's not as if I'm taking an enormous risk by being a skeptic. Honestly, it appears as if there's an equal likelihood of the Earth being struck by some enormous meteor in the next 500 years as there is for the Earth to reach abnormal temperatures that erase life as we know it. Yet, I don't see anyone running around petitioning NASA to start working on "Meteor Defense Shields", and I don't see musicians holding "save the earth from the meteor" concerts. It's kind of ridiculous that, out of all the problems that have the potential of harming humans, we're focusing so much on something so minor and unproven.

 

so far all that I have seen is a lot of long winded rants, similar to the 9/11 thread. The only shred of anything tangible is wildcat's post about those two scientists.

 

However, what do we really have? Two credible scientists vs the vast majority (including the top ones of the IPCC)?

 

Just because a couple dissent does not mean that the majority is wrong. And I don't think that anyone doubts the fact that the majority agree with the IPCC's version of global warming.

 

In reality, there are far more scientists than those I'm quoting. I'm looking at the U.S. Senate's report right now, and I'm just pulling scientists and their responses every time someone pulls an argument based on conjecture. Those listed as being present, or contributing to the Senate's report number well over 400. Coincidentally, many of those very scientists were involved with the IPCC's study and actually received a part of Al Gore's Nobel Prize. However, they were so disgusted with the obvious lack of scientific inquiry present during the entire study that they felt compelled to speak out.

 

I don't really believe that there are only a few dissenters. In fact, I don't really believe that 400 truly represent the number of skeptics in the scientific community on the issue of "Global Warming". Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said it best when he stated, "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid." I hate to be so cynical, but what makes anyone think that scientists are immune to the financial restrictions that plague working people worldwide? They're humans too, and are susceptible to the very same weaknesses that the rest of us experience.

 

Plus, the majority of the scientists that are stepping forward aren't exactly guys like the "Intelligent Design Guru" Behe. They're widely respected experts in their field. They've all performed enormous research, and have made fantastic attributions to their respective fields. It's not like we're dealing with a couple of idiots with a fake degree, we're talking about guys who literally made the field in which they're in. At times like these, I think it's important to remember that the majority of the scientific opinion isn't always right. Men like Galileo and Einstein were criticized by the "Scientific Majority" of the time for their conclusions. Yet today, these men are heralded as the greatest minds of their time.

 

Should we suddenly throw away all scientific majority for the sake of a few dissenters? Of course not. But simply disregarding their finds because the "majority" disagrees isn't the smart thing to do.

[A Nonny Moose]

so far all that I have seen is a lot of long winded rants, similar to the 9/11 thread. The only shred of anything tangible is wildcat's post about those two scientists.

 

However, what do we really have? Two credible scientists vs the vast majority (including the top ones of the IPCC)?

 

Just because a couple dissent does not mean that the majority is wrong. And I don't think that anyone doubts the fact that the majority agree with the IPCC's version of global warming.

 

Believe it or not, the hot topic in the 1970's was how the amount of pollution in the atmosphere will block out the sun and cause global COOLING. Every scientist believed this one also.

[socal swimmer]

Just because the scientists were wrong in the past, does not mean that we should ignore them now. We have much better data, and faster computers (by a lot), and better simulations. While I do agree that it is important to question what scientists say, this questioning should be done by those with a background in the field (ie other scientists).

 

People will always dissent, but if the prevailing scientific opinion supports anthropogenic global warming, then I think it is smart to go with that.

[Ed D]

Except those scientists weren't wrong. The phenomenon of Global Dimming is a proven fact and has helped to mask the impact of Global Warming.

 

 

@ wildcat69410

 

Before we proceed, let me put forth two differing analogies here.

 

First analogy: you and I are driving in a car along a mountain road. A boulder falls in front of us and I shout "Stop! We're gonna crash!" Second analogy: we driving in that same car along that same mountain road but there is no boulder. Instead, you are driving on the road twice the posted limit. I shout "Slow down! We might run off the road!"

 

This is the problem with the argument that we are having. You perceive the argument as being that of analogy one, but the argument being presented to you is that of analogy two. Furthermore, either analogy could end in the death of both of us, but you are arguing as if those of us advocating a slow down are certain that it will end in death. Not at all. We are arguing because it MIGHT end in death and we are unwilling to take that chance.

 

That's just the kind of cataclysmic scaremongering I'm talking about. Whenever anyone brings up another issue, or claims that "Global Warming" isn't as eminent as they believe, they instantly switch into a "nobody survives" scenario. Screw Darfur, screw the AIDS epidemic, forget poverty, forget all of that. Who cares about that, because in several hundred years, the world may no longer support life! Brilliant!

 

So what if it's "scaremongering?" If you are driving too fast, you should be scared of the potential consequences. You should recognize the fact that if we don't drive with caution, we might drive off the road, possibly killing the both of us. Should that occur, then issue like "our poorly tuned engine" or "getting to the church on time" become completely moot.

 

BTW, I didn't "switch to a 'nobody survives'" scenario. I pointed out to you that the video in question wasn't listing the worst case scenarios; they were completely absent from the presentation.

 

Okay, so deserts are growing, but are they growing at an out of control rate? Is there anything to suggest that the past 100 years has seen greater temperature variance than centuries before? Not really. French Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon states, "Day after day, the same mantra - that 'the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As 'the ice melts' and 'sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!" There is nothing that points to out of control climate change. As I've stated previously, the change in temperature over the past century falls along the standard average of years past!

 

Scientists aren't worried about out of control warming. They are worried about a tipping point." They are worried about "turning that curve so fast that the car goes completely off the road."

 

Now, one possible example of such a tipping point that involved global warming would be the Methane Extinction Event (Clathrate Gun) that occurred at the end of the Permian. Global warming melted the methane ice that existed on the continental shelves under the sea, which may have caused an extinction event that destroyed roughly 75% of all life on Earth. If such an event hit us tomorrow, how well do you think we'd survive?

 

For your "nightmare scenario", there's no real evidence to suggest that the Earth is suddenly going to lose its capacity to sustain life. Sure, we're growing towards that 8 billion person limit, but there's not an ounce of proof that some cataclysmic "light switch" is going to be flipped, reducing the Earth's capacity to 4 billion instantly. Honestly, there are about a dozen things that are more likely to cause worldwide chaos than Global Warming. Epidemics, rogue Nuclear Weapons, terrorism, anything! Yet we're supposed to dump billions of dollars of resources into stopping "Global Warming"? Even worse, the evidence out there suggests that, if anything, this is a natural occurrence that man cannot control!

 

There have been, at least, 7 extinction events in Earth's history and there are "tons" of proof in the form of fossils and geologic evidence. That Methane Extinction Event I listed above is just such an example of a "light switch" that reduced the Earth's species to 25% of what it was and it could happen again, as we have no clue whatsoever how much methane ice has built up on the continental shelf and, therefore, no idea what will happen if we push the climate where such gases gets released again. Once again, you can bet your life on that, just don't expect the rest of us to.

 

Interesting that you point out Mars and Venus as examples of "Global Warming". Especially seeing as there's no intelligent life attributing to or preventing the phenomenon to occur. In fact, as both planets are experiencing rising temperatures in similar variations as Earth, it can be reasonably concluded that "Global Warming" may have to do with an attribute that all planets share. Their relationship to the sun. Perhaps rising temperatures are due to some galactic factor that we haven't yet taken into account. Regardless, it's clear that the rising temperatures on Venus and Mars have little to do with man-made CO2 tongue.gif .

 

Both Mars and Venus were meant to simply represent an example of a "crash."

 

BTW, Mars isn't experiencing rising temperatures. Quite the opposite. It was once warmer with oceans. But some time in it's geological past, it hit a tipping point where the waters dried up and left the planet completely arid and unable to support life.

 

Furthermore, this is why I said "this means the point regarding the current climate trend and man's involvement is irrelevant." My point about Mars and Venus was never about CO2 and human intervention. It was simply meant to demonstrate what could happen to any planet, even ours. Just as any car can "go off the road," not just the one "we are driving in."

 

Exactly! Earth's temperature has fluctuated many times in the past, naturally! Regardless of the CO2 man emits, it's going to fluctuate. In fact the Earth has experienced temperatures much higher than this multiple times throughout History!

 

Yes, I know. But you're still missing my point. I've already pointed out that it does not matter if it is man made or not. All that matters is that we understand the problem and find a way to manage it if we can. And if all we need to do is slow the car down, then, maybe, we should slow the car down?

 

However, the past several million years illustrates a decrease in the variability of the temperatures (lower highs and higher lows). Even with those variations as a precedent, there's no evidence to suggest that temperatures are rising in an unnatural fashion. Furthermore, there's no evidence to suggest that man-made factors are causing this increase. The mere fact that it has occurred before, without the help of man, makes me think that it's simply a natural fluctuation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

This runs contrary to what the majority of scientists are saying, which is that we are in a period of warming and that it has been accelerated by the actions of man.

 

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ... In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

 

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

 

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

 

So, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say there is no evidence. Not when the majority of scientists say there is.

 

Again, the same "cataclysmic risk" argument. I'm sorry, but even the IPCC doesn't suggest that the Earth is suddenly going to lose capacity for life. It's not as if I'm taking an enormous risk by being a skeptic.

 

Neither am I. Remember, you suggested that the video was arguing the "worst case scenario," and that's when I said "no, THIS is the worst case scenario." I do not believe that such an event is immanent. I do not, however, want to take the chance that it "just around the next curve," either. That's the difference between what I'm telling you and how you are reading both my response and the arguments raised in the video. Neither of us are decrying "Oh my gawd! We're all gonna die!" Instead, we are saying "Slow down! We don't know what's beyond the next curve." So, this isn't a call for for "sudden action" but, rather, call to move at a more manageable speed. And examples of what might be around the corner are not declarations of impending doom, but recognition of what may be possible.

 

Honestly, it appears as if there's an equal likelihood of the Earth being struck by some enormous meteor in the next 500 years as there is for the Earth to reach abnormal temperatures that erase life as we know it. Yet, I don't see anyone running around petitioning NASA to start working on "Meteor Defense Shields", and I don't see musicians holding "save the earth from the meteor" concerts. It's kind of ridiculous that, out of all the problems that have the potential of harming humans, we're focusing so much on something so minor and unproven.

 

So, a tipping point, like the Clathrate Gun, is equal in scope to the impact of a meteor? Even the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs did not kill off 75% of all species on the planet. Of course, it all depends on the size of the meteor or the size of the methane release, but where a meteor may be a random event, the melting of methane ice may almost be a given if the planet warms too much.

 

Ed.

[wildcat69410]

Just because the scientists were wrong in the past, does not mean that we should ignore them now. We have much better data, and faster computers (by a lot), and better simulations. While I do agree that it is important to question what scientists say, this questioning should be done by those with a background in the field (ie other scientists).

 

People will always dissent, but if the prevailing scientific opinion supports anthropogenic global warming, then I think it is smart to go with that.

 

We can't exactly place all of our faith in computer modeling. Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the IPCC, has noted, "The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models." There are so many unknown variables that simply cannot be effectively programmed into a computer model. To rely upon such a model as your primary means of proof is fairly ridiculous.

 

Who do you think I'm quoting? I'm giving you the names of many scientists who are actively opposing and questioning the "evidence" surrounding AGW. As I've said before, the "so-called" consensus on "Global Warming" is false. Even the "scientific majority" is becoming thinner. To simply listen to the prevailing majority in this case is a big mistake.

 

Except those scientists weren't wrong. The phenomenon of Global Dimming is a proven fact and has helped to mask the impact of Global Warming.

 

Sure they were. Those scientists, like many of those today, took what little temperature information they had and used it to predict the coming of the next ice age! Yet all we're talking about is barely a degree or two at most. It's the same situation today. Scientists are taking "evidence" and exaggerating its effects to "conclude" that the earth is about to hit that "tipping point" and species worldwide will become extinct. Global Cooling and Global Dimming are two radically different theories on the sheer fact that they have radically different conclusions.

 

First analogy: you and I are driving in a car along a mountain road. A boulder falls in front of us and I shout "Stop! We're gonna crash!" Second analogy: we driving in that same car along that same mountain road but there is no boulder. Instead, you are driving on the road twice the posted limit. I shout "Slow down! We might run off the road!"

 

This is the problem with the argument that we are having. You perceive the argument as being that of analogy one, but the argument being presented to you is that of analogy two. Furthermore, either analogy could end in the death of both of us, but you are arguing as if those of us advocating a slow down are certain that it will end in death. Not at all. We are arguing because it MIGHT end in death and we are unwilling to take that chance.

 

No offense, but both analogies are very incorrect. I'll ignore the first, and instead examine the second. It completely ignores the information I've presented. A better analogy might be more like this:

 

We're driving along a road in a car that has a broken speedometer. We really have little that suggests how fast we're going. While driving, we pass one of those automated radar stations on the road that tell us our speed and the posted speed limit. To our relief, we're driving well within the posted speed limit, and there's nothing to suggest that we've been driving any differently. Here's the catch. We're driving on a flat road, with no cliff side or curve in sight. Yet you're telling me that even though there's no evidence to suggest that I'm driving too fast, and that although there's no evidence to suggest that we're about to hit a deadly curve, that I should slow down anyway.

 

That's my problem with all of this. There really isn't a lot of proof suggesting anything like what Al Gore is preaching to his congregation of environmentalists. The whole "better safe than sorry" really loses its effect when there's nothing suggesting that we'll be sorry.

 

So what if it's "scaremongering?" If you are driving too fast, you should be scared of the potential consequences. You should recognize the fact that if we don't drive with caution, we might drive off the road, possibly killing the both of us. Should that occur, then issue like "our poorly tuned engine" or "getting to the church on time" become completely moot.

 

BTW, I didn't "switch to a 'nobody survives'" scenario. I pointed out to you that the video in question wasn't listing the worst case scenarios; they were completely absent from the presentation.

 

Scaremongering has no place in any scientific discussion. If you can't get your point across with reasonable facts or statistics, you shouldn't rely on the inherent fear of a brainwashed population to do it for you.

 

Scientists aren't worried about out of control warming. They are worried about a tipping point." They are worried about "turning that curve so fast that the car goes completely off the road."

 

Now, one possible example of such a tipping point that involved global warming would be the Methane Extinction Event (Clathrate Gun) that occurred at the end of the Permian. Global warming melted the methane ice that existed on the continental shelves under the sea, which may have caused an extinction event that destroyed roughly 75% of all life on Earth. If such an event hit us tomorrow, how well do you think we'd survive?

 

Still, there's nothing to suggest that we're getting any closer to that "tipping point". There's no evidence that illustrates how anything out of the ordinary or unprecedented is happening with our climate. In reality, we're no closer to the "tipping point" than we were before the industrial revolution, or any time period before that.

 

As for the Clathrate Gun, we're far away from that becoming even a recognizable possibility. According to the Wikipedia article that you linked to, the Methane Extinction Event would require at least a rise in sea level temperatures of at least 5 degrees celsius. If we continue along our current rate of "heating", and that's still assuming that the earth wouldn't cool at all during the period (which it inevitably would), then we're talking well over 500 years before such a gain could happen. As I've stated before, the average temperature variability over a century is 0.8C. That's a change in temperature up or down. We have no evidence that tells us that we're surpassing that average, or that the rate is going to continue to climb for centuries to come.

 

There have been, at least, 7 extinction events in Earth's history and there are "tons" of proof in the form of fossils and geologic evidence. That Methane Extinction Event I listed above is just such an example of a "light switch" that reduced the Earth's species to 25% of what it was and it could happen again, as we have no clue whatsoever how much methane ice has built up on the continental shelf and, therefore, no idea what will happen if we push the climate where such gases gets released again. Once again, you can bet your life on that, just don't expect the rest of us to.

 

Okay, how many of them have been clearly caused by some form of "Global Warming"? Last I checked, a meteor striking the earth and causing a mass extinction had little to do with the temperature on the earth itself. You can worry all you want, but in the end there's no statistic that suggest we're heading down that road to mass extinction.

Both Mars and Venus were meant to simply represent an example of a "crash."

 

BTW, Mars isn't experiencing rising temperatures. Quite the opposite. It was once warmer with oceans. But some time in it's geological past, it hit a tipping point where the waters dried up and left the planet completely arid and unable to support life.

 

Furthermore, this is why I said "this means the point regarding the current climate trend and man's involvement is irrelevant." My point about Mars and Venus was never about CO2 and human intervention. It was simply meant to demonstrate what could happen to any planet, even ours. Just as any car can "go off the road," not just the one "we are driving in."

 

Really? It seems to me that Mars has actually been experiencing an increase in its temperatures over the past half-century or so. I know that Mars was once a hospitable planet, but I was talking about the more recent past when I made that statement. My point was, and is, that temperatures can rise on a planet for entirely different reasons. Obviously, there are no "man-made" causes on Mars that's making those temperatures rise. In effect, it's a natural occurrence. I see no reason to believe that what's happening on Earth is any different.

 

Using Venus and Mars as planets that have "gone off the road" is a little misleading. While Mars once could have sustained life, Venus never could, especially considering its proximity to the sun. Plus, we don't fully understand what happened to either planet that pushed it into the current inhospitable state. To conclude that the Earth could easily follow in their footsteps is a little rash.

 

Yes, I know. But you're still missing my point. I've already pointed out that it does not matter if it is man made or not. All that matters is that we understand the problem and find a way to manage it if we can. And if all we need to do is slow the car down, then, maybe, we should slow the car down?

 

As I said above, there's no evidence to suggest that the car is speeding up. Furthermore, it matters hugely whether or not humans are causing "Global Warming". Because, if we're not causing it, then what can we do to stop it? If it's not CO2 that's increasing temperatures, then why are we talking about capping its emissions? Honestly, if "Global Warming" is a natural phenomenon that is going to continue to rise, there's really nothing we can do. However, I see no evidence to suggest that this phenomenon will continue, or that it's doing something irregular or out of the ordinary.

 

So, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say there is no evidence. Not when the majority of scientists say there is.

 

Not entirely. The IPCC was composed of a grand total of... (drumroll please) 52 scientists. Not hundreds of the world's brightest, not thousands of geniuses hailing from every corner of the globe. 52 freaking scientists. I've already given you 400 scientists who responded in a Senatorial investigation on "Global Warming".

 

Plus, I haven't even begun to mention the likes of the Oregon Petition. Honestly, when over 19,000 scientists get together to oppose something, you can throw terms like "scientific consensus" or "scientific majority" straight out the window. Plus, as the wikipedia article states, there are other similar petitions as well, all signed by scientists who oppose the theory of AGW. Let's face it, there's no consensus, and there's certainly no identifiable majority that believe in AGW. At least, there's not a large enough one to justify the expenditure of resources towards "stopping" or "slowing down" "Global Warming".

 

Neither am I. Remember, you suggested that the video was arguing the "worst case scenario," and that's when I said "no, THIS is the worst case scenario." I do not believe that such an event is immanent. I do not, however, want to take the chance that it "just around the next curve," either. That's the difference between what I'm telling you and how you are reading both my response and the arguments raised in the video. Neither of us are decrying "Oh my gawd! We're all gonna die!" Instead, we are saying "Slow down! We don't know what's beyond the next curve." So, this isn't a call for for "sudden action" but, rather, call to move at a more manageable speed. And examples of what might be around the corner are not declarations of impending doom, but recognition of what may be possible.

 

I understand what you're saying, but there's still no evidence to support it. You're asking me to slow down because "we don't know what's around the next curve", but there's nothing to suggest that a curve is even in sight. Arguably, there is more evidence to suggest that a meteor could fall out of the sky and hit the car we're all driving in than a curve is coming up in the roadway. Yet you see nobody begging me to start driving in an avoidance pattern to ensure that we won't be hit.

 

Quite simply, we can't responsibly allocate resources to an issue that (and no evidence suggests that it will) "might" kill us all. There are countless of other possibilities of what the earth could face within the next millenia. There's a "super-volcano" under Yellowstone that, if it erupts, could cause another mass extinction. Yet I hear nobody putting forth radical plans of preventing its eruption, or perhaps installing some kind of plan for what to do if it actually occurs. Again, I see no reason to act any differently with "Global Warming".

 

So, a tipping point, like the Clathrate Gun, is equal in scope to the impact of a meteor? Even the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs did not kill off 75% of all species on the planet. Of course, it all depends on the size of the meteor or the size of the methane release, but where a meteor may be a random event, the melting of methane ice may almost be a given if the planet warms too much.

 

Actually, if the meteor is large enough, the impact could potentially cause worldwide extinction. Of course, it's all dependent on the atmospheric impact that it has. Ironically, there's more evidence to suggest that the impact of a large meteor would have a greater influence on global temperatures than the emission of "greenhouse gases". Arguably, there's even more evidence to suggest that a meteor strike is far more eminent than the continuation of "Global Warming".

 

Either way, there's still no reason to build meteor shelters, and there's still no reason to dump resources into preventing the rise of "Global Warming".

[Ed D]

No offense, but both analogies are very incorrect. I'll ignore the first, and instead examine the second. It completely ignores the information I've presented. A better analogy might be more like this:

 

We're driving along a road in a car that has a broken speedometer. We really have little that suggests how fast we're going. While driving, we pass one of those automated radar stations on the road that tell us our speed and the posted speed limit. To our relief, we're driving well within the posted speed limit, and there's nothing to suggest that we've been driving any differently. Here's the catch. We're driving on a flat road, with no cliff side or curve in sight. Yet you're telling me that even though there's no evidence to suggest that I'm driving too fast, and that although there's no evidence to suggest that we're about to hit a deadly curve, that I should slow down anyway.

 

Both my analogies are perfectly fine, but no matter, I can easily adapt yours. You see, it's even possible to be going too fast on a perfectly normal road. By going too fast, you can: burn out your engine, blow a tire, drift into an on-coming car, have an on-coming car drift into you, hit a patch of ice, not see a pedestrian, etc, etc, etc... some of these can even kill you, and the wise thing to do is to drive at an appropriate speed.

 

Here's where your analogy fails: just like the people you seem to think you're arguing against (those that you think are abitrarily seeing a disaster coming) you are arbitraryly NOT seeing a disaster coming while someone like myself is still saying "maybe we should slow down, just to be safe?" Now, which is the wiser measure?

 

That's my problem with all of this. There really isn't a lot of proof suggesting anything like what Al Gore is preaching to his congregation of environmentalists. The whole "better safe than sorry" really loses its effect when there's nothing suggesting that we'll be sorry.

 

Let's be clear here, I am not espousing anything that Mr. Gore is, most of what he offers is hype and exageration, but that does not mean that he is wrong, or that there is no threat ahead. Even a complete idiot can be right.

 

Scaremongering has no place in any scientific discussion. If you can't get your point across with reasonable facts or statistics, you shouldn't rely on the inherent fear of a brainwashed population to do it for you.

 

I said "so what IF it is scaremongering?" I did not say it was scaremongering.

 

However, this isn't a scientific discussion and even scientific discussions MUST address the potential consequences, including the worst case scenarios. Unfortunately, anyone who wants to can label this as scaremongering.

 

Still, there's nothing to suggest that we're getting any closer to that "tipping point". There's no evidence that illustrates how anything out of the ordinary or unprecedented is happening with our climate. In reality, we're no closer to the "tipping point" than we were before the industrial revolution, or any time period before that.

 

There's no evidence to suggest that a pedestrian might walk in front of you either, but it's still wisest to keep your speed down to 25 mph in a pedestrian zone. Such is the nature of caution.

 

As for the Clathrate Gun, we're far away from that becoming even a recognizable possibility. According to the Wikipedia article that you linked to, the Methane Extinction Event would require at least a rise in sea level temperatures of at least 5 degrees celsius. If we continue along our current rate of "heating", and that's still assuming that the earth wouldn't cool at all during the period (which it inevitably would), then we're talking well over 500 years before such a gain could happen.

 

The current warming trend has been going on for roughly 10,000 years, how do you know we aren't approaching that 5 degree temperature rise already? How do you know it isn't "just around the corner" and we are approaching it too fast?

 

Okay, how many of them have been clearly caused by some form of "Global Warming"? Last I checked, a meteor striking the earth and causing a mass extinction had little to do with the temperature on the earth itself. You can worry all you want, but in the end there's no statistic that suggest we're heading down that road to mass extinction.

 

Read back. Clathrate gun? According to the theories, it was caused by warming. But you blew the entire point off.

 

Really? It seems to me that Mars has actually been experiencing an increase in its temperatures over the past half-century or so. I know that Mars was once a hospitable planet, but I was talking about the more recent past when I made that statement. My point was, and is, that temperatures can rise on a planet for entirely different reasons. Obviously, there are no "man-made" causes on Mars that's making those temperatures rise. In effect, it's a natural occurrence. I see no reason to believe that what's happening on Earth is any different.

 

And you are still arguing a point that I am not. Most who fear the consequences of Global Warming believe that man made causes are accelerating warming, not causing it. And the concern is that we may reach a tipping point that causes even more harm.

 

I understand what you're saying, but there's still no evidence to support it. You're asking me to slow down because "we don't know what's around the next curve", but there's nothing to suggest that a curve is even in sight. Arguably, there is more evidence to suggest that a meteor could fall out of the sky and hit the car we're all driving in than a curve is coming up in the roadway. Yet you see nobody begging me to start driving in an avoidance pattern to ensure that we won't be hit.

 

And you are ignoring the scientific consensus that says their is evidence. The clathrate gun being such example of what could happen. And, BTW, the "avoidence pattern" most drivers resort too in, let's say, a pedestrian zone, is to slow down to a speed that will give you enough time to react should a pedestrian step in front of you.

 

Either way, there's still no reason to build meteor shelters, and there's still no reason to dump resources into preventing the rise of "Global Warming".

 

But we are searching for meteors that might impact the Earth, we are monitoring Yellowstone for volcanic activity, and we are monitoring the planet for warming. When we find a meteor coming our way, we likely will build shelters and do whatever else is needed, assuming we have enough time. When Yellowstone shows significant activities, we likely will stock up on supplies and prepare for the worst (assuming we enough have time). AND the scientific consensus is that man made activity IS warming the planet. So maybe, just maybe, we should slow some of those activities down, thereby, giving us enough time should the worst case scenario present itself? This is why we slow down in a pedestrian zone, to give us enough time to react. Not because of what will happen, but because of what MIGHT happen.

 

Ed.

[socal swimmer]

WEll lets start with the basics:

 

evidence for global warming:

 

A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica presenting data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years.[9]

 

Temperature record since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years.

 

A 2004 survey by Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, found that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconviene...cientific_basis

 

Consequences of Global Warming:

Increasing global temperature will cause sea level to rise, and is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

 

 

We can't exactly place all of our faith in computer modeling. Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the IPCC, has noted, "The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models." There are so many unknown variables that simply cannot be effectively programmed into a computer model. To rely upon such a model as your primary means of proof is fairly ridiculous.

 

Who do you think I'm quoting? I'm giving you the names of many scientists who are actively opposing and questioning the "evidence" surrounding AGW. As I've said before, the "so-called" consensus on "Global Warming" is false. Even the "scientific majority" is becoming thinner. To simply listen to the prevailing majority in this case is a big mistake.

 

so we should listen to the minority instead?

 

computer modelling aside, there is still a huge amount of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming.

 

 

 

Sure they were. Those scientists, like many of those today, took what little temperature information they had and used it to predict the coming of the next ice age! Yet all we're talking about is barely a degree or two at most. It's the same situation today. Scientists are taking "evidence" and exaggerating its effects to "conclude" that the earth is about to hit that "tipping point" and species worldwide will become extinct. Global Cooling and Global Dimming are two radically different theories on the sheer fact that they have radically different conclusions.

No offense, but both analogies are very incorrect. I'll ignore the first, and instead examine the second. It completely ignores the information I've presented. A better analogy might be more like this:

 

We're driving along a road in a car that has a broken speedometer. We really have little that suggests how fast we're going. While driving, we pass one of those automated radar stations on the road that tell us our speed and the posted speed limit. To our relief, we're driving well within the posted speed limit, and there's nothing to suggest that we've been driving any differently. Here's the catch. We're driving on a flat road, with no cliff side or curve in sight. Yet you're telling me that even though there's no evidence to suggest that I'm driving too fast, and that although there's no evidence to suggest that we're about to hit a deadly curve, that I should slow down anyway.

 

400,000 years of temperature data (spanning 4 major hot-cold cycles) IS evidence, and its dam strong too. If you are going to make blanket statements that there is "no evidence", then you must disprove all the evidence that has already been presented.

 

That's my problem with all of this. There really isn't a lot of proof suggesting anything like what Al Gore is preaching to his congregation of environmentalists. The whole "better safe than sorry" really loses its effect when there's nothing suggesting that we'll be sorry.

Scaremongering has no place in any scientific discussion. If you can't get your point across with reasonable facts or statistics, you shouldn't rely on the inherent fear of a brainwashed population to do it for you.

Still, there's nothing to suggest that we're getting any closer to that "tipping point". There's no evidence that illustrates how anything out of the ordinary or unprecedented is happening with our climate. In reality, we're no closer to the "tipping point" than we were before the industrial revolution, or any time period before that.

 

As for the Clathrate Gun, we're far away from that becoming even a recognizable possibility. According to the Wikipedia article that you linked to, the Methane Extinction Event would require at least a rise in sea level temperatures of at least 5 degrees celsius. If we continue along our current rate of "heating", and that's still assuming that the earth wouldn't cool at all during the period (which it inevitably would), then we're talking well over 500 years before such a gain could happen. As I've stated before, the average temperature variability over a century is 0.8C. That's a change in temperature up or down. We have no evidence that tells us that we're surpassing that average, or that the rate is going to continue to climb for centuries to come.

Okay, how many of them have been clearly caused by some form of "Global Warming"? Last I checked, a meteor striking the earth and causing a mass extinction had little to do with the temperature on the earth itself. You can worry all you want, but in the end there's no statistic that suggest we're heading down that road to mass extinction.

Really? It seems to me that Mars has actually been experiencing an increase in its temperatures over the past half-century or so. I know that Mars was once a hospitable planet, but I was talking about the more recent past when I made that statement. My point was, and is, that temperatures can rise on a planet for entirely different reasons. Obviously, there are no "man-made" causes on Mars that's making those temperatures rise. In effect, it's a natural occurrence. I see no reason to believe that what's happening on Earth is any different.

 

Using Venus and Mars as planets that have "gone off the road" is a little misleading. While Mars once could have sustained life, Venus never could, especially considering its proximity to the sun. Plus, we don't fully understand what happened to either planet that pushed it into the current inhospitable state. To conclude that the Earth could easily follow in their footsteps is a little rash.

As I said above, there's no evidence to suggest that the car is speeding up. Furthermore, it matters hugely whether or not humans are causing "Global Warming". Because, if we're not causing it, then what can we do to stop it? If it's not CO2 that's increasing temperatures, then why are we talking about capping its emissions? Honestly, if "Global Warming" is a natural phenomenon that is going to continue to rise, there's really nothing we can do. However, I see no evidence to suggest that this phenomenon will continue, or that it's doing something irregular or out of the ordinary.

Not entirely. The IPCC was composed of a grand total of... (drumroll please) 52 scientists. Not hundreds of the world's brightest, not thousands of geniuses hailing from every corner of the globe. 52 freaking scientists. I've already given you 400 scientists who responded in a Senatorial investigation on "Global Warming".

regarding that senate report:

 

"Padded" would be an extremely generous description of this list of "prominent scientists." Some would use the word "laughable" (though not the N.Y. Times' Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?

 

I'm not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as "prominent scientists," and many of those, like Freeman Dyson -- a theoretical physicist -- have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I'm not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.

 

Even Ray Kurzweil, not a scientist but a brilliant inventor, is on the list.

 

 

Plus, I haven't even begun to mention the likes of the Oregon Petition. Honestly, when over 19,000 scientists get together to oppose something, you can throw terms like "scientific consensus" or "scientific majority" straight out the window. Plus, as the wikipedia article states, there are other similar petitions as well, all signed by scientists who oppose the theory of AGW. Let's face it, there's no consensus, and there's certainly no identifiable majority that believe in AGW.

 

well I'm glad you think that there is no identifiable majority.

 

Problem is, you are wrong:

 

2004 survey by Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, found that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconviene...cientific_basis

 

 

 

 

At least, there's not a large enough one to justify the expenditure of resources towards "stopping" or "slowing down" "Global Warming".

I understand what you're saying, but there's still no evidence to support it. You're asking me to slow down because "we don't know what's around the next curve", but there's nothing to suggest that a curve is even in sight. Arguably, there is more evidence to suggest that a meteor could fall out of the sky and hit the car we're all driving in than a curve is coming up in the roadway. Yet you see nobody begging me to start driving in an avoidance pattern to ensure that we won't be hit.

 

 

 

even if there is no tipping point we are still doing significant damage to the planet.

 

 

 

Quite simply, we can't responsibly allocate resources to an issue that (and no evidence suggests that it will) "might" kill us all. There are countless of other possibilities of what the earth could face within the next millenia. There's a "super-volcano" under Yellowstone that, if it erupts, could cause another mass extinction. Yet I hear nobody putting forth radical plans of preventing its eruption, or perhaps installing some kind of plan for what to do if it actually occurs. Again, I see no reason to act any differently with "Global Warming".

Actually, if the meteor is large enough, the impact could potentially cause worldwide extinction. Of course, it's all dependent on the atmospheric impact that it has. Ironically, there's more evidence to suggest that the impact of a large meteor would have a greater influence on global temperatures than the emission of "greenhouse gases". Arguably, there's even more evidence to suggest that a meteor strike is far more eminent than the continuation of "Global Warming".

 

Either way, there's still no reason to build meteor shelters, and there's still no reason to dump resources into preventing the rise of "Global Warming".

 

even without the tipping point (which is still a possibility), there are many other negative effects of global warming:

 

Increasing global temperature will cause sea level to rise, and is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Soündless]

i think something is different when it is 68F in chicago in january

[apowerr]

i think something is different when it is 68F in chicago in january

Anecdotal evidence with no scientific basis, this means nothing.

[JonTheSavage]

If the Global Warming is real, then why are the polar ice caps on Mars melting the same as Earth's?

[Ed D]

Your question appears to assume that Global Warming is man-made. The globe will warm with or without man's help. The question for most who are concerned about the phenomenon is "is man making the problem worse'?" not "is man the cause?"

 

Ed.

[socal swimmer]

If the Global Warming is real, then why are the polar ice caps on Mars melting the same as Earth's?

 

The melting of the polar ice caps on mars has only been observed since 1999, as opposed to the much longer record (hundreds of thousands of years) we have on earth. Also, their climate is much more unstable, and orbital variations (precession) affects it significantly. The idea that there is a parallel between martian ice cap shrinkage and that on earth has been dismissed by scientists :

 

Writing in a Nature news story, Chief News and Features Editor Oliver Morton said "The warming of other solar bodies has been seized upon by climate sceptics; but ... On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Ma...climatic_change

 

Your question appears to assume that Global Warming is man-made. The globe will warm with or without man's help. The question for most who are concerned about the phenomenon is "is man making the problem worse'?" not "is man the cause?"

 

for this, i refer to the text of the IPCC report:

 

-Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

-Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#IPCC_Fou...ate_Change_2007

[JonTheSavage]

The melting of the polar ice caps on mars has only been observed since 1999, as opposed to the much longer record (hundreds of thousands of years) we have on earth. Also, their climate is much more unstable, and orbital variations (precession) affects it significantly. The idea that there is a parallel between martian ice cap shrinkage and that on earth has been dismissed by scientists :

 

Which scientists? I question their creditability. The same scientists you are talking

about think that Saturn and Jupiter are closer to the sun than Earth is.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuNLahhZFJ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnofms6H7zc...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7x_SBXInx4...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzy6O-uR6FA...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQLOnQZGLaw...feature=related

 

I think that most of you that believe that man-made global warming garbage are the same ones that deny

that Earth went through an ice age. Earth has never had a stable climate. It is always changing. The sun

gets hotter, and it gets cooler. Maybe you should research the stages of stars, and how burning hydrogen reacts.

 

What you are basicly claiming is that the nuclear reaction that is the sun is stable.

 

"Observed" since 1999. "Observed" being they key word here, as in you wouldn't know since it has only

been "Observed" since that time. "Observed" by whom? Maybe those scientists you talk about need to pay more attention.

[PSPHax0r9]

...ManBearPig?

[Paranoid Marvin]

Ok, so let's decide we can't work out if Global Warming is happening or not, or if we are the cause.

 

What are we going to do when the oil runs out?

 

With no oil, we have no petrol, kerosene, nylon, kevlar, poly(ethene), most pharmaceuticals, etc etc.

The modern world would just collapse without oil, which is why we still need to go green, cut down on carbon emission (because most of the time, they come directly from oil) and carbon tax everyone.

 

If we stop using oil for fuel, we can still recycle plastics, and cut oil usage down to an absolute minimum, prolonging stocks for 1000s of years, rather than tens.

Even if you don't believe we are causing global warming, we still need to save our asses at some point, by cutting down on oil usage.

 

Target no.1 - SUVs in America: seriously, after talking to a few folks from the USA, I am absolutely shocked at the number of huge cars that use petrol 5x faster than what would be called thirsty over here!

 

IMHO, people should need a special license to drive and SUV (like a gun license over here) and should get a substantial emission tax