Global warming will kill us all!

[Baal]

We really need to stop arguing whether Global Warming will wipe out the human race or not; because it won't.

The only things that will wipe us out are:

Solar radiation on a planetary level (many different scenarios)
Celestial impact
Yellowstone erupting (or an equally large volcanoe)

Even a Yellowstone eruption might not necessarily wipe us out, but it'd sure do more damage than Global Warming ever will. Global Warming is more of a lifestyle change than anything. Drastic changes? Likely, but they still remain just that.

 

[bbson john]

There are over 6 billion people, we are by far the most adaptable species on the planet. We live pretty much everywhere in every single climate. For something to wipe us out, it would also have to wipe out everything bigger than a raccoon. Equilibrium will include us. How can you not see that? Do you imagine that if it is 35 degrees in the summer everyone will suddenly die? Try moving to Arizona, people there use air conditioning. Sure, climate change can have lots of negative impacts, but there is nothing there that can wipe out humanity. If we go, it won't be because our environment is no longer hospitable, it would have to be something big like an asteroid.

And who the **** is this "we" that we have a responsibility to. It's not like humans are some giant hive mind that acts as a single entity. It's survival of the fittest, you look out for yourself, and in turn that means looking out for the species no matter what form it takes. You can't badmouth this giant "humanity" that encompasses everyone because that person simply doesn't exist.

The fact is that people just can't be frickin happy, they always have to complain about something.

If there is no animal, or in your term, all the unadaptable species were to cull out, there is no food at all. Can we synthesie our own food? Yes, we can. But not enough for feeding all 6 BILLIONS people there have have in the world, and not enough for giving a single ration for computer nerds like us. Owing to the lack of food, we will all die. And you won't survive no matter how 'fit' you are. Moreover, if all the plants were to die out, who will be going to convery CO2 into O2 we respire? By artificial machine? I am sure we don't have enough of them even we exhaust all the metal we have on Earth. Without oxygen, no complex lifeform, human inclusive, can live without aerobic respiration. We will soon die out, no matter how advance we are or how adaptive. Temperature rising to 35 degree Celsius is not the major harm of global warming, its side-effects are far greater.

I give in.

*halves IQ*

You IQ did not diminish a bit, since 0*1/2 = 0

I say that you should look to happiness in your own life. Changes come and go in the world and to humanity. We all adapt to it on the small scale and we keep chugging along. There are always something looming over the horizon. But you are not responsible for humanity, governments aren't responsible for humanity. Humanity is just like nature, it just is.

And you say I am callous and get even more angry that I don't care about the future of humanity. And I say so what, humanity can take care of itself, nature can take care of itself, I will take care of myself. Everything just works.

We are worring about the future of our generation. If you wish humanity can take care of itself, I am sure it will take care of itself(die). Do you want every sons of us curse us everyday for what we did? There should be a balance. We should defend for our happiness, but as well we should let our species continue existing.

You cant really say that. Theres no denying the world is destroying itself, thats inevitable, but us speeding it up doesnt help. For that reason alone, we have the resposibility to take action because we have the ability to take action.

The world destroys itself after Five billion years when sun turns into a redgiant. We catalysed it and the world destroy itself after about two hundred years. Compare that, five billion years and two hundred years. Isn't the time worth buying. I've left it at that.


Yellowstone eruption is something temporary, most life-form can survive through, but global warming is not. It is a permanent change of the world. It is a complete break down of the food chain. Since it lasts long, most organisms cannot plow through it.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

We have a bigger problem on our hands here people!

They are past the spears......Now they want us dead.

 

[StardogChampion]

Just been watching Channel 4 (the channel this documentary was broadcast on), and it's just been said that the creator of it has been accused of creating misleading shows in the past, and one of the contributors has already come out and said that he was taken miles out of context.

 

[Absinthe]

Indeed, that accusation was made in one of the links Kage provided earlier.

 

[Baserape>]

I will adapt.

:bonce:

 

[Baal]

Screw it; I'm doing a 180 on everything I've said in this thread to date. We're speeding up the climate change (or global warming), and now I'm convinced.

I have made this decision after some reading around, but I also found this video which is incredibly interesting and gives me hope for the future.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4569577556800822039&q=amory+lovins+rose

This is an interview with Amory Lovins, a man generally focused on the economics of oil production and how to reduce the cost of energy consumption. However, his studies go hand in hand with changing the course of global warming.

 

[SAJ]

If (as claimed in this thread)the ice caps keep melting and reforming, then how come we have ice core records going back 800,000 years(more than three interglacial periods) ?

Earlier results from the Epica core were published in 2004 and 2005, detailing the events back to 440,000 years and 650,000 years respectively. Scientists have now gone the full way through the column, back another 150,000 years.

The picture is the same: carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall in step.

Like tiny time capsules, bubbles trap ancient samples of atmosphere
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range," explained Dr Wolff ...

And here's the bad news ...

The "scary thing", he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.

"The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records," he said

From "Deep ice tells long climate story" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm

 

[TheHamster22]

Are we to assume your art teacher is more informed then the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change?

This thread put me in a bad mood >.<

Tbh, the art teacher probably is, if the facts that are coming out are true. The majority of the IPCC is made up of unqualified scientists, hell there was one on the BBC last night saying he was a guy that studied mosquitos in the amazon and was a part of IPCC. He himself said he didn't know anything about climotology and not to talk about it to him. D:

The IPCC is a shambles it seems

 

[Direwolf]

See the other thread about that particular BBC show. Don't take it at face value.

And the problem here is that both sides of the debate are doing it a disservice. The global warming debate worldwide is stymied by the sheer amount of bull that both sides use regularly. This has led to a situation in which it is impossible for even the most intelligent, well-informed, and open minded people to determine what is real and what is not. The sooner we can come to a consensus the better it will be for everyone.

 

[jondy]

Anyone read the Guardian editorial today? It debunked the whole show by discrediting the contributors - a lot of the evidence it put forward has already been refuted in peer reviewed journals.

 

[Hapless]

Anyone read the Guardian editorial today? It debunked the whole show by discrediting the contributors - a lot of the evidence it put forward has already been refuted in peer reviewed journals.

Where in that editorial was anything debunked. It just said the show and it's contributors were wrong. Didn't say why. Didn't list any, "peer reviewed journals," refuting the evidence. What are you talking about?

 

[Vigilante]

I have no idea what to think after reading through that other thread.

I believe that humanity should start heavily funding research toward hydrogen and ethanol research and see what happens 100 years from now. The only issue with this is the general public may not have the money to buy a hydrogen powered car. I say hydrogen and only hydrogen because ALL current internal-combustion engines can be adapted to run on ethanol; it will cost a little bit of money, but its worth cutting our oil-dependency (ethanol will eat through rubber fuel lines and o-rings, those will have to be replaced with synthetic blends, but they are all cheap parts).

I will be the first one to admit that I drive a car that has a V8 under the hood and sucks gas like no other. I love my car and would never want to get rid of it. HOWEVER, I would, without any doubt, spend money to adapt it to run on ethanol.

 

[<RJMC>]

why this ended in politics?

 

[Hapless]

why this ended in politics?

Because it has more to do with politics than science?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Denial of science is, sadly, a political problem.

Science isn't a democracy. You can't vote your way into changing the laws of nature to support your favorite party platform.
Frankly, if you don't believe in global warming, with all the conclusive evidence out there: you're retarded, folks.

I'm not hugely worried about it; I don't think it'll destroy humanity or even the petrochemical industry. But it is, based on all evidence, unescapably real.

 

[Hapless]

Denial of science is, sadly, a political problem.

Science isn't a democracy. You can't vote your way into changing the laws of nature to support your favorite party platform.
Frankly, if you don't believe in global warming, with all the conclusive evidence out there: you're retarded, folks.

I'm not hugely worried about it; I don't think it'll destroy humanity or even the petrochemical industry. But it is, based on all evidence, unescapably real.

What "conclusive," evidence is there that it is either human-caused or human-accelerated? What, "conclusive," evidence is there that it is anything more than a natural warming trend as has happened numerous times throughout the billions of years the earth has been around? Scientific consensus? Since when is science decided by consensus? As you say yourself, science isn't a democracy. Did you watch the show?

I don't think there is a whole lot of denial of global warming. The denial comes in when a certain group or groups advocate for passing unnecessary laws to "protect" the earth from us when there is meager evidence that we are cause or contributor. These groups dress their advocacy in a faux-crisis, e.g. "OMG, warming will destroy us all in 10 years if we don't stop using oil and driving big evil SUV's." For reference, see An Inconvenient Truth for exactly this type of crisis-mongering.

 

[Jintor]

What "conclusive," evidence is there that it is either human-caused or human-accelerated? What, "conclusive," evidence is there that it is anything more than a natural warming trend as has happened numerous times throughout the billions of years the earth has been around? Scientific consensus? Since when is science decided by consensus? As you say yourself, science isn't a democracy. Did you watch the show?

Consensus says that Gravity keeps you anchored to the earth. DOES IT? DOES IT REALLY?

*Fearmongers*

By the way, some rain for Australia would be nice.

 

[Hapless]

Consensus says that Gravity keeps you anchored to the earth. DOES IT? DOES IT REALLY?

*Fearmongers*

By the way, some rain for Australia would be nice.

What? Gravity is scientific law. The effects of gravity are quite plain to see and calculate. How does this relate to human-caused global warming?

 

[Jintor]

I was kidding using easily refutable crap-logic i pulled from my ass.

/EDIT I would still like some rain though.

 

[Hapless]

I was kidding using easily refutable crap-logic i pulled from my ass.

/EDIT I would still like some rain though.

Oh...well....ha ha:E

 

[jondy]

Where in that editorial was anything debunked. It just said the show and it's contributors were wrong. Didn't say why. Didn't list any, "peer reviewed journals," refuting the evidence.

Well, yes, it did. The theories of one of the main contributors to the show -that were used in the show- have been debunked by three articles in peer reviewed journals.

I don't have the article on hand, so I can't argue specifics yet.. I might be able to pull it up online somewhere, I'll have a check.

 

[SAJ]

Where in that editorial was anything debunked. It just said the show and it's contributors were wrong. Didn't say why. Didn't list any, "peer reviewed journals," refuting the evidence. What are you talking about?

You want peer-reviewed papers? OK, you got it(not that you will be bothered to read them, mind)

Dependence of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance,
Nature, 14 September 2006,
DAVID J. THOMSON, Mathematics of Communications Research Department, Bell Laboratories.

Thomson concludes that ?changes from CO2 over the last century are about three times larger than those from changes in solar irradiance?.

LINK

Causes of 20th Century Temperature Change Near Earth?s Surface,
Nature 399, 569-572, 10 June 1999.
SIMON F. B. TETT, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research; PETER A. STOTT, WILLIAM J. INGRAM, JOHN F. B. MITCHELL UK Meteorological Office; MYLES R. ALLEN, Department of Physics, University of Oxford

They conclude that: ?Solar forcing may have contributed to the temperature changes early in the century, but anthropogenic causes combined with natural variability would also present a possible explanation. For the warming from 1946 to 1996 regardless of any possible amplification of solar or volcanic influence, we exclude purely natural forcing, and attribute it largely to the anthropogenic components?.

link

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years,
Science, 14 July, 2000 v. 289.
Thomas J. Crowley Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University.

Crowley concludes that : ?As much as 41 to 64% of (pre-1850) temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism?[There is] a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system.

LINK

Modern Global Climate Change,
Science, Dec. 5, 2003, Thomas R. Karl, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center ; Kevin E. Trenberth National Center for Atmospheric Research.

They conclude that: ?Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive.

LINK

Draft Report Affirms Human Influence,
Science, Vol 288, April 28, 2000 , Richard A. Kerr,

?For the past several years, an international panel of climate scientists has examined climate?s natural variability, changes in solar radiation, and volcanic outpourings, among others. But none of those factors fit the past century?s observed warming as well as the explanation they suggested in 1995: an increase in greenhouse gases generated by human activity?.

LINK

Its hard to know when to stop, I suspect that no amount of evidence or science will convince some people.
Oh well, at least it wont be for lack of trying......

* IPCC II to issue grim forecast: AP (March, 2007)

* Science panel calls for immediate action to avert catastrophe (Feb. 2007)

* Scientists: ice cap meltdown seems inevitable (Feb. 2007)

* Ocean acidification found deeper than 4,000 meters (Feb. 2007)

* Spain is convergence point for many major climate impacts (Feb. 2007)

* New IPCC report paints very bleak future (Jan. 2007)
* 2006 Was Hottest Year on Record in US (Jan. 2007)

* Arctic Sea Ice seen vanishing in 35 years (Dec. 2006)

* Change in seasons highly visible in Alpine regions (Dec. 2006)

* Carbon emissions rise sharply since 2000 (Nov. 2006)

* Lovelock: "We're toast" (Nov. 2006)

* Warming is accelerating the extinction of species (Nov. 2006)

* Weakening gulf stream stalled for 10 days in 2004 (Oct. 2006)

? NCAR projects more weather extremes (Oct. 2006)

? Drought seen overtaking half the planet by 2100 (Oct. 2006)
? Solar variations have not influenced climate for at least 400 years (Sept. 2006)

? CO2 rise unprecedented in 800,000 years (Sept. 2006)
? Researchers see disastrous impacts from 3* rise (Aug. 2006)

? Warming is making most of the US wetter (June, 2006)

? NRC confirms warming, "hockey stick" findings (June, 2006)

? Permafrost CO2 deposits are double earlier estimates (June, 2006)

? Glacial melt contributes to earthquake activity (June, 2006)

? Seasonal shift triggers evolutionary changes in small animals (June, 2006)

? Are we re-entering a prehistoric period of "permanent" el nino?

? Feedbacks will fuel a much hotter world (May, 2006)

? Scientists see Arctic meltdown passing "tipping point" (May, 2006)

? IPCC: Humans are "dominant" cause of warming (April, 2006)

? King sees 3* C rise nearly inevitable (April, 2006)

? Jim Hansen's very urgent warning (Dec. 2005)

? IPCC raises estimates of future warming (Feb. 2006)

? Earth is on a "fast track" to climate shift (Feb. 2006)

? Current warming exceeds any climate changes in past 1200 years (Feb. 2006)

? Scientists dismayed by speed of Greenland glacier disintegration (Feb. 2006)

? 2005 emerges as hottest year on record (Jan. 2006)

? Permafrost runoff could alter ocean currents (Dec. 2005)

? Amazon rainforest suffers "calamity" from record drought (Dec. 2005)

? Climate scientists worry about potential "tipping points" (Nov. 2005)

? New Swiss Re report details human, ecological health impacts of climate change (Nov. 2005)

? New model projects intensifying extremes in US (Oct. 2005)

? 2005 on track to rival 1998 as hottest year on record (Oct., Dec. 2005)

-----------------------------------------------------------

? Scientists on the strength of Katrina (Sept. 2005)

-----------------------------------------------------------

? Computer models seen underestimating impacts on weather (Sept. 2005)

Droughts trigger food shortages in one-sixth of world's nations (June, 2005)

Hockey Stick graph attacked as flawed research -- science or disinformation? (Feb. 2005)

Arctic ice melt accelerates sea level rise (Nov. 2004)

Ocean warming threatens Antarctic food chain (Nov. 2004)

Scientists identify potential runaway climate feedbacks (Oct. 2004)

Western US could face future of "mega-droughts" (Oct. 2004)

Scientist warns of irreversible cascades of runaway system changes (Aug. 2004)

Researchers foresee stronger, more lethal heatwaves (Aug. 2004)

Melting ice from highest CO2 levels in 55 million years threatens world's coastal cities (July 2004)

Methane "belch" may have caused early warming (June, 2004)

Atmosphere: new satellite data unequivocally confirms warming (May 2004)

Impacts of climate change seen in all parts of U.S. (May,2004)

Scientists warn new Ice Age may be imminent (Jan. 2004)

2003 ties 2002 for second hottest year (Jan. 2004)

Glaciers: Kyoto goals must be four times higher to avoid catastrophic melt (Dec. 2003)

Atmosphere: Climate change "beyond doubt" (Dec. 2003)

Atmosphere: Warming drives weather extremes: WMO

Atmosphere: Climate is changing 50 percent faster than previously thought;

New "fingerprint" study shows warming increases height of troposphere

Oceans: COs may be acidifying the world's oceans

Disease: West Nile Virus cutting bird populations in Midwestern U.S.

Glaciers: Arctic ice, vanishing at accelerating rate, may disppear before end of century

Forests: Tree farming appears to generate more CO2 than it absorbs for at least a decade

Migrations and Ecosystem Changes: Small warming triggers large species migrations

Warming could drive massive extinctions on planet

Western U.S. pika being driven to extinction by climate change

Land Use, Crops and Soils: Western U.S. faces massive water shortages

Each of those headlines has its own link if you go from THIS PAGE
I would also reccomend THIS page for countless examples of disinformation, political or otherwise.

EDIT : ps , here is the link for the Monbiot article for Jondy. Its a good read, but sadly it doesnt use citations for the claims it makes( though they can all be verified if one is bothered) http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2032361,00.html

 

[Sulkdodds]

Relevant posts from the other thread:
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2203901&postcount=10
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2203902&postcount=11
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2203951&postcount=14
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2203958&postcount=15
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2204000&postcount=23
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2204009&postcount=24

 

[Warbie]

I don't doubt there were a lot of distorted truths presented, but he constructed a very solid case nevertheless.

I'm not so sure. My parents are both geophysicists and both have a particular interest in this subject. As such they rented The Inconvinient Truth and we all sat down to watch - for much of the show they were smirking at the misinformation and downright untruths while explaining to me in which areas Mr Gore was talking complete and utter bollox (which happened to be most of them). Pretty much everything they'd mentioned, and more, can be seen in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The planet has been far warmer than it is now on counltess occasions before humans arrived (my dad has personally been involved in some of these studies). It has happened many times since we've been here and will most likely continue to happen long after we've blown ourselves up. The affect man made co2 has on global warming is so extremely negligible it's barely worth mentioning.

I agree we should stop polluting the planet and knocking down trees - that's just common sense. I don't believe we've we've had any affect on global warming, though - infact, the whole notion strikes me as pure vanity. Mighty man changing the very temperture of the planet! - it's been doing that very well on its own for millions of years.

 

[SAJ]

Relevant posts from the other thread:
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2203901&postcount=10
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2203902&postcount=11
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2203951&postcount=14
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2203958&postcount=15
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2204000&postcount=23
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2204009&postcount=24

Ah yes, the recently-deceased "other thread" RIP.
I see two of my posts(rather good ones as well, imho) in that list, but I believe that Comrade Badger's contribution has special relevance...

Just read this, I'm sure I've posted it to widespread apathy before. The CATO institute's report on Global Warming, written by the Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/.../reg15n2g.html

To summerise, its a scientist who doesnt think that the evidence is equal to the hype, but finds that the science is sound. He just wants more time to be sure , we will come back to that point.
Who is (re)publishing his viewpoint is of more interest, the CATO institute is founded and run on Libertarian principles and ideology. Libertarian philosophy can fairly be summed up thusly...

The term libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, as long as they allow others the same liberty

(taken from wiki)SOURCE
So why would a political group who hold human economic freedom in the highest regard care about man-made global warming?
Simple, they have looked beyond the science, through to the neccessary actions required to do something meaningful about it - taxes and lots of them, plus binding global econmic legislation, economic co-operation rather than neo-liberal competition. In short, everything that they -as a group- are diametricaly opposed to. Variations on this are responsible for most government inactivity on the subject, it just goes against the global capitalism trend that everyone has agreed to, its just too close to.... say it .... SOCIALISM!!!
Its ahuge stumbling block and it will be the biggest test of human ingenuity for the 21st century.

Ok, back to Richard S. Lindzen (the not-quite-sceptic from MIT) again, his position of uncertainty is crucial to the whole debate.
In an ideal world we would be able to run a series of experiments and observe the results until there is no doubt in anyone's mind and then act accordingly.
Unfortunately, we have one experiment we can run, in fact its running as we speak, its called the global ecosystem and once it has run its course we wont be able to undo it. So rather than sit back and watch Rome burn(so to speak) we have to make do with climate models. Simulations that we can run at accelerated time-speeds over and over. Nobody can argue that a simulation is as good as the real thing, but its the best we have(short of doing nothing) for deciding what action to take before its too late.
This is where the heart of the contraversy lies, which of two competing paths to take ;

1) Take action that changes global economic power structures, in the belief that we can stop climate change before it becomes unmanagable(presuming that there will be such an effect, and that we can affect change).

2) Do nothing, wait for more evidence and plan for adaptation to whatever comes next(if indeed anything does happen)

My own position is this; there is a limited window of oppotunity in front of us, once CO2 reaches a certain threshold, many of the planets systems will go into positive feedback, expelling greenhouse gases where once they would have absorbed and held them. We have to make sure that this threshold is not reached, for if it is global warming will be out of our control and we will have no choice but to look on helplessly in that knowledge that we could have acted but didnt.



Edit, WARBIE, care to post some verifiable evidence rather than second hand hearsay?

I'm not so sure. My parents are both geophysicists and both have a particular interest in this subject. As such they rented The Inconvinient Truth and we all sat down to watch - for much of the show they were smirking at the misinformation and downright untruths while explaining to me in which areas Mr Gore was talking complete and utter bollox (which happened to be most of them). Pretty much everything they'd mentioned, and more, can be seen in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

If your parents are geophysicists, then it shouldnt be too difficult to dig up.

 

[Warbie]

Edit, WARBIE, care to post some verifiable evidence rather than second hand hearsay? If your parents are geophysicists, then it shouldnt be too difficult to dig up.

If you want me to ask them for more specific information I can surely do that - this is their favourite subject right now. Both of them work in algeria at the moment looking for oil (argh, they must be biased! ) so are an email away.

I'd like to point out that my knowledge on this subject is limited - i'm basing my views pretty much on what i've read on a few forums/websites and my trust in my parents, who've both spent a life time studyng the planet.

//edit

I hope you're not questioning whether my parents being geophysicists is something i've made up btw, and that 'too difficult to dig up' wasn't an attempt at lame geology humour. I've grown up with Geology Rocks t-shirts and no longer find this stuff amusing

 

[SAJ]

If you want me to ask them for more specific information I can surely do that - this is their favourite subject right now. Both of them work in algeria at the moment looking for oil (argh, they must be biased! ) so are an email away

Yeah, I would appreciate it if you could do that.
Not being argumentative btw, its just that in a science debate we need more info, not less.

I'd like to point out that my knowledge on this subject is limited - i'm basing my views pretty much on what i've read on a few forums/websites and my trust in my parents, who've both spent a life time studyng the planet.

No shame in that, we all have to start with an empty cup.

 

[Warbie]

As luck would have it my dad just called (he's curently staying with the Bedouin and has limited access to certain technology - this may sound exciting, but trust me, Geology isn't )

A few years ago he was doing a study of the Ordovician glaciation of North Africa. This goes back around 14 million years. The ice sheet covered the entire region, making it one of the largest there has ever been (bigger than than antarctica - it was massive). Various tests (I forogt to ask which ones - can ask if you like) confirmed that at this time time there was 14 times the more co2 in the atmosphere than in contempory climate. Other studies over various time periods have yielded similar results. He asks how you can reconcile that with with the theory of global warming?

He then went off on one, but basically said that as a Geologist (he's a geophysicists by job description, but geology is where he specialises) he sees so much evidence of cyclic climate change at times when man wasn't on the planet that you have to question what influence we could have. He also pointed out that one of the greatest contributers of co2 are mature trees and that climate models are notoriously unreliable - 'don't trust them, we can't even predict with accuracy the weather next month, let alone in 100's, 1000's, or tens of 1000's of years time'

I also sent an email to my mum.

 

[Hapless]

You want peer-reviewed papers? OK, you got it(not that you will be bothered to read them, mind)

LINK
link
LINK
LINK
LINK

Its hard to know when to stop, I suspect that no amount of evidence or science will convince some people.
Oh well, at least it wont be for lack of trying......
Each of those headlines has its own link if you go from THIS PAGE
I would also reccomend THIS page for countless examples of disinformation, political or otherwise.

EDIT : ps , here is the link for the Monbiot article for Jondy. Its a good read, but sadly it doesnt use citations for the claims it makes( though they can all be verified if one is bothered) http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2032361,00.html

Actually I did read those. The word "uncertainty" pops up quite a bit. The authors were also careful to point out thst their conclusions were a possible explanation. If one reads news reports based on this research, uncertainty becomes certainty and possibility becomes absolute probability.

 

[DaMaN]

I've posted in other Global Warming topics, but I figured I might as well post here too:

First of all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fcezh2-jO8

On a more serious note, as far as I can see, there are three primary elements to Global Warming:

1. Is the Global Warming phenomenon itself real? (Do Greenhouse Gases heat the Earth?)
2. Are there more Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere now than in comparitively similar periods of time?
3. Is the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases attributable to humans?

In this post, I intend to prove all three of these postulates.

1. Global warming is real. Adding carbon dioxide or methane to Earth's atmosphere makes the planet's surface warmer. If it didn't, the Earth would be uninhabitable. See Wikipedia:

Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 ?C (54 ?F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors.

Click here for more on the Greenhouse Effect, first discovered in 1824


2. Currently, there is a much higher concentration of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere now than in comparitively similar periods of time.

Refer to Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. This scientific report gives the current concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, as well as concentrations prior to the Industrial revolution.
Some highlights:
Carbon Dioxide:

Pre-1750 Concentration: 280 ppm
Current Concentration: 377.3 ppm​

Methane:

Pre-1750 Concentration: 730/688 ppm
Current Concentration: 1847/1730 ppm​

Nitrous Oxide:

Pre-1750 Concentration: 270 ppm
Current Concentration: 319/318​

Tropospheric Ozone:

Pre-1750 Concentration: 25 ppm
Current Concentration: 34​

For further information on this report, see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Note: Scientific sources, calculations and experimental methods are also contained within this report​

For more information about the increase of greenhouses gasses, see Wikipedia's entry on Increase of Greenhouse Gasses


3. The increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is attributable to humans.

As seen in point 2, with the advent of the Industrial Age has come increased Greenhouse Gases. There have been no extreme global events (such as volcanoes spewing ash for 300 years) other than human activities that account for this. Therefore, it seems likely that the increase of Greenhouse Gases is the fault of humans.

To lend credence and authority to this statement, I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations".


Hence,
1. Global Warming via the Greenhouse Effect is real.
2. There are more Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere now than in a comparitively similar period of time.
3. According to the IPCC, there is a greater than 90% chance that this increase is caused by humans.

 

[Direwolf]

As luck would have it my dad just called (he's curently staying with the Bedouin and has limited access to certain technology - this may sound exciting, but trust me, Geology isn't )

A few years ago he was doing a study of the Ordovician glaciation of North Africa. This goes back around 14 million years. The ice sheet covered the entire region, making it one of the largest there has ever been (bigger than than antarctica - it was massive). Various tests (I forogt to ask which ones - can ask if you like) confirmed that at this time time there was 14 times the more co2 in the atmosphere than in contempory climate. Other studies over various time periods have yielded similar results. He asks how you can reconcile that with with the theory of global warming?

He then went off on one, but basically said that as a Geologist (he's a geophysicists by job description, but geology is where he specialises) he sees so much evidence of cyclic climate change at times when man wasn't on the planet that you have to question what influence we could have. He also pointed out that one of the greatest contributers of co2 are mature trees and that climate models are notoriously unreliable - 'don't trust them, we can't even predict with accuracy the weather next month, let alone in 100's, 1000's, or tens of 1000's of years time'

I also sent an email to my mum.

From what little I know this all does actually ring true. I was a dinosaur nut as a kid and its well established that the CO2 levels and global temperatures were much different than today and have changed vastly over time.

However, I've always understood that the problem with global warming is not actually the warming itself (nothing unsurvivable), but rather the speed with which it is coming on and the various problems this could create (which are likely unpredictable...but its hard to foresee them being good). In addition, while the earth has experienced much warmer (and much colder) temperatures than anything we're ever likely to see, the planet has also suffered more than a handful of mass extinctions in its time. Its vain to think that we could kill the planet, but we've seen in the past that its possible for us to kill a whole lot of people and animals very quickly.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Actually I did read those. The word "uncertainty" pops up quite a bit. The authors were also careful to point out thst their conclusions were a possible explanation.

Duh, because legitimate scientists effectively never make absolutist claims unless there is near-absolute certainty. And even then, it's poor procedure.

If a scientist claims 100% probability of being correct, that is usually a blatant sign of fraud.

So, by your reasoning there, all science is invalid.


Also, in response to an earlier point you made:

science is indeed measured by evidence and not consensus, but scientists do have an ethical obligation to evaluate facts to the best of their ability. If scientists in a relevant field have a signifigant consensus, there is a reason.

You can claim it's a conspiracy (by who?) or some kind of massive systemic error (based on what evidence?), but it's obviously far more likely that the consensus exists because that is where the summed total of relevant knowledge has brought us thus far.

As people have been pointing out, basic knowledge of how science works debunks most of these sorts of dumb conspiracy claims.

 

[Hapless]

Duh, because legitimate scientists effectively never make absolutist claims unless there is near-absolute certainty. And even then, it's poor procedure.

If a scientist claims 100% probability of being correct, that is usually a blatant sign of fraud.


Also, in response to an earlier point you made:

science is indeed not measured by facts and not consensus, but scientists do have an ethical obligation to evaluate facts to the best of their ability. If scientists in a relevant field have a signifigant consensus, there is a reason.

You can claim it's a conspiracy (by who?) or some kind of massive systemic error (based on what evidence?), but it's obviously far more likely that the consensus exists because that is where the sum total of where relevant knowledge has brought us thus far.

As people have been pointing out, basic knowledge of how science works debunks most of these sorts of dumb conspiracy claims.

I never claimed a conspiracy. My point is that there is a lot of alarmism and wild claims with little basis in fact. For instance. I recall that at the end of 2006, there were several reports that 2007 would be the hottest year on record. Thus far, February of 2007 is reported to have been one of the coldest on record. After the hurricane season of 2005, the hurricane season of 2006 was supposed to be even worse, with unimaginable carnage. The hurricane season of 2006 turned out to be nothing of note. This sort of irresponsible "news" reporting, as well as very vocal agitating by some lunatic fringe groups and Al Gore's idiotic ramblings, not to mention calls for decertification of "deniers," by Heidi Cullen, have made it nearly impossible to determine what is actually going on here.

 

[Jintor]

Well, yes, I agree that there probably is a lot of that.

But we should still stop being dicks and ****ing the environment over, right? You can't argue with that.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You were, just a few posts ago, criticising mainstream science based pretty much entirely on a pseudoscientific TV documentary and your misconceptions about how science works.
Now you're complaining that the media is actually the shadowy entity at fault, for broadcasting "fringe" theories that aren't scientific enough for you.

Do you not see the blatant self-contradiction there, because I think it's rather amazing.


Seemingly, only "fringe" theories that tangentally support the views of the political left are bad. But what do you even define as "fringe"?

An Inconvenient Truth is "fringe" to you?
The movie that has been consistently praised by scientists for its accuracy, and criticized all but exclusively by the same pseudoscientific group you consider worthy of baseless but nonetheless unqualified trust?

So you're calling it "lunatic idiotic ramblings" based on what, exactly? Did you divine the answer by examining the contents of your ass?*
It seems that your definition of fringe is equally invalid as your definition of science, which is to say: "only when it suits me."

In fact, I'll go so far as to bet right now that you haven't seen the Inconvenient Truth film. Or even considered seeing it.
I might safely guess you haven't even watched the trailer.

I'm betting right now that your entire opinion is based on the same pseudoscientific pap this thread has so efficiently and repeatedly trounced.
I'm seeing blogs. Lots of blogs. Maybe a google video or two.
But you sure as hell wouldn't touch the actual thing. Good lord no, that's unfeasable.

But hey, that's cool. Everybody loves an uninformed and incoherent opinion about the evils of the media, mainstream science and LEE-BUR-OOLS.


I'm being harsh, but it's unavoidable; I can read you like a book.
A children's book with a depressing ending and no moral; Everybody Poops, except the animals are just shitting themselves to death.

Try harder. Raise your standards.


*This is an actual scam fortune-telling procedure called scatomancy. The more you know!

 

[Nemesis6]

I think the reason I'm willing to believe it's not real is not because I eat children, but because the ones who argue for it are nutcases, for example Cindy Shithead. She believed the hurricane "Katrina" was caused by George Bush, who caused it by not doing enough to control global warming. So in this case, it's a weapon to use against the policies of whomever you don't agree with, and as the documentary illustrated, a way for radical leftists to enter the mainstream of politics through a dubious agenda which, in reality, is only adopted to gain influence in politics, thus giving them more power to influence other political aspects. And one point of it was proven here: If you disagree, you are not an equal. "You are a heretic" as was said.

 

[jondy]

Shunning policy based on a vocal minority is a poor attitude to have. If you can agree with the science, then the debate is over - you're not aligning yourself with these crazies just because you support one of their policies.

 

[SAJ]

I think the reason I'm willing to believe it's not real is not because I eat children, but because the ones who argue for it are nutcases....

Well, the climate change "deniers" have more than their fair share of whackjobs also

C4?s debate on global warming boils over

Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to ?go and f*** yourself?.

The tirade has caused Dr Leroi to withdraw his cooperation from another Channel 4 project with Mr Durkin on race, The Times has learnt.

The programme, broadcast by Channel 4 last Thursday, featured a number of scientists who disputed the consensus on the causes of global warming.

Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Chris-tensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed by subsequent research by Peter Laut.

Dr Leroi e-mailed Mr Durkin about his use of data, concluding: ?To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways.? He copied Mr Singh into the exchange.

Mr Durkin replied to both later that morning, saying: ?You?re a big daft cock.? Less than an hour later, Mr Singh, who has worked for the BBC, intervened to urge Mr Durkin to engage in serious debate. He wrote: ?I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather than just resorting to one-line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/ right and how do things better/ even better in the future.? Mr Durkin replied nine minutes later: ?The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance . . . Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing.

?Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of shit programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?

?Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and f*** yourself.?
Last night Dr Leroi said that he was amazed at the rudeness of Mr Durkin?s reply.

?It was rather a shocking response,? Dr Leroi said. ?It was my intention to make a film with Martin Durkin and [the production company] Wag, but that is something I am seriously reconsidering now. I am no climate scientist, but I was very concerned at the way that flaws in these data were brushed over.?

He said that the global warming film had glossed over flaws in data that it used to make its case, and that it was critical that a documentary about a subject as controversial as race and biology did not make similar mistakes

Not a really useful contribution to the discussion, but I just had to share this.

Also...

I'm being harsh, but it's unavoidable; I can read you like a book.
A children's book with a depressing ending and no moral; Everybody Poops, except the animals are just shitting themselves to death.

F***ing priceless Mr Mecha

 

[DaMaN]

I think the reason I'm willing to believe it's not real is not because I eat children, but because the ones who argue for it are nutcases...

So you are willing to fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence because there are some nutjobs in the world? And I must agree with SAJ here, it would seem to me that the population of nutjobs is higher on the global warming deniers side...