"How to talk to a global warming sceptic"

[Saturos]

I haven't read on water vapor much, but CO2 and methane do have strong infrared absorbance, which leads to more heat radiating back to earth, and CO2 levels have been increasing by a lot. Methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas (1 ton of methane will cause more warming than 1 ton of greenhouse gas), but much higher quantities of CO2 are produced. I don't know the potency of water vapor or whether water vapor levels have been changing over time... will have to look that up.

I think that water vapor being produced is better than CO2 production, because the steam can be used to provide heat for other processes and the condensed water can be removed, whereas CO2 capture & sequestration is much more expensive.


Saturos's comments are frustrating but I won't respond because I think Solaris and Atomic_Piggy are doing a pretty good job of defending science . Linked from the website in the original post, though: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html. A good list of all the institutes supporting the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

[edit]
I read this about water vapor.
Water vapor is the main contributor to the "greenhouse effect" (warming of earth by greenhouse gases in general), but not necessarily to "global warming" (recent increase in temperature).

I know I'm frustrating, it's just that I demand quality info. I'm new to the whole "scientific method" thing admittedly and not always quite sure how theories are devised. Questioning every single perspective is the best way to learn. For me, it's hard to take someone's word-of-mouth, even if they are professionals. I'm not trying to discredit them in any way tbh. I just like to make sure everything is legit.

Thank you for being tactful about my opinion btw, as crazy as I might seem about things at times.

 

[Eejit]

I know I'm frustrating, it's just that I demand quality info. I'm new to the whole "scientific method" thing admittedly and not always quite sure how theories are devised. Questioning every single perspective is the best way to learn. For me, it's hard to take someone's word-of-mouth, even if they are professionals. I'm not trying to discredit them in any way tbh. I just like to make sure everything is legit.

Thank you for being tactful about my opinion btw, as crazy as I might seem about things at times.

I see the problem. You don't realise that scientific method is itself inherently critical and the natural state is disbelief.

If a paper gets published that means the results have been accepted as legitimate not just by the author, but by a whole panel of neutral, skeptical scientists who are also expert in that field.
It isn't just guesswork, published with a wink and a nod.

 

[Solaris]

Well, perhaps Saturos, given you self admitted ignorance of the subject, you will withdraw your original statement on it?

 

[Saturos]

Well, perhaps Saturos, given you self admitted ignorance of the subject, you will withdraw your original statement on it?

To be fair, I'll withdraw my belief on my statements about the climate's current state as well as global warming IF you can provide a link explaining why I should believe current research and link(s) describing scientific theory. (the OPs link is not enough) That is fair right? :upstare:

 

[Krynn72]

Damn Saturos. Look it up yourself. Do some freaking research. It sounds like you're perfectly willing to stay ignorant on this topic unless someone else does your own research for you. You're just being incredibly naive, and its obvious to anyone with any level of education on the scientific method. You should learn more about science and its studies before you go off making ridiculous opinions based off absolutely zero understanding of the given situation.

 

[AiM]

Probably just propaganda all those hippies made up during that time to suit their silly agenda(s). :/

CFC's were probably banned just to keep them quiet.

....Good God Saturos, pick up a science book before you make ridiculous statements like this.

1 molecule of CFC (100% man-made compound that does not occur naturally) destroys somewhere around 100,000 molecules of O3 (Ozone). The Chlorine from the CFC compound reacts with UV light and breaks apart before it starts a chain reaction with the O3 compounds to form Chlorine Oxide (ClO). The chlorine is then released and the cycle repeats itself for approx. 10 years.

Here's a simple diagram to illustrate the process:

1. CFC + UV radiation = Cl released
2. Cl + O3 = ClO + O2
3. ClO + UV = Cl + O

Repeat.

 

[lame-o]

I know global warming is real, but I haven't really seen anything in Vancouver that would lead people to think it's getting WARMER, if anything it seems to be getting COLDER - just with a bunch of extreme temperature/weather spikes only lasting a day or two. Winter has been getting longer over the last 3-4 years and spring is starting later, though now we have weird ass 35-42 degree celsius (around 100 degrees fahrenheit) periods spanning up to a week in the summer and 80+ km windstorms during the winter/fall.

 

[Nemesis6]

Yeah, it's probably real. What I wanna hear about it is stuff like what AiM posted, and not scaremonger bullshit like how much CO2 is released when you tear down a wooden house. God, that stuff's retarded and anyone actually interested in stuff like that should pick up hammer, beat self, and repeat. Again, more AiM, less scaremongering.

 

[Saturos]

Damn Saturos. Look it up yourself. Do some freaking research. It sounds like you're perfectly willing to stay ignorant on this topic unless someone else does your own research for you. You're just being incredibly naive, and its obvious to anyone with any level of education on the scientific method. You should learn more about science and its studies before you go off making ridiculous opinions based off absolutely zero understanding of the given situation.

Damn Krynn. I don't wanna look it up myself. I don't wanna do no freaking research.

Really, I didn't realize how many of you people take this stuff so seriously tbh. To me it's just simple speculation. Stuff better off left for the professionals, but it doesn't hurt to wonder and devise one's own theories right? Even if it does sound like absurd and contradictory BS. Climatology isn't my field anyways.

I guess many of you don't look at it as simple small talk though. Plus, are some of you guys majoring in climatology or something? :|

On that note, and so it doesn't offend any of you who are serious about the issue and/or demand more respect for the experts in the field(s) in debate, I take back everything I said in this thread on account of being too lazy to follow up. Normally I would try to submit something useful in this thread, but I guess I was completely useless this time. and proud of it.

Not even I can comprehend the complex and intricate workings of my inner thoughts. ( /me pictures a carton of milk tipping over )

 

[Fliko]

Please be a bit more coherent.

Your saying the vast majority of the worlds respected climatologists are part of a conspiracy to fudge the data? To what end? Why would they do this?

Most importantly, what is your evidence?

Maybe you should ask these people.
Or these scientists
Or this guy
Or this guy
Which links to this guy
And finally this guy

Or you can continue kissing Al Gore's ass.
I guess you may try to convince me that we cause the global warming on Mars too

 

[Saturos]

Maybe you should ask these people.
Or these scientists
Or this guy
Or this guy
Which links to this guy
And finally this guy

Or you can continue kissing Al Gore's ass.
I guess you may try to convince me that we cause the global warming on Mars too

Thank you Fliko. Your officially my best friend on HL2.net now for shoving a few socks in some mouths and doing my research for me.

BTW: Thanks to Fliko, here's a quote from a **ahem** professional off of the Wiki link that was posted to support my theories. (I knew it was somewhere on the webz, just didn't know where. The user was broken, not Google.):

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air.

Now then. Kiss my ass naysayers.

 

[dfc05]

Comments in bold. I'm probably not very convincing to all the skeptics, but I'll try anyways.

Maybe you should ask these people.

I didn't actually go through and read the papers, but pulling quotes taken off that website: "To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." "Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates."

These arguments sound almost exactly like the ones that were coming out around the time when Exxon started making advertisements and paying scientists to refute global warming evidence (PBS video - this is a pretty good video to watch for those who have time, or even just read through the interviews; it includes viewpoints from both sides). I know the link says that their project gets no funding from energy sources -- I'm just pointing out the coincidence.

So instead, I'll say that "increased atmospheric CO2 is environmentally helpful" is not entirely true, and if that person really believes that, they're ignoring a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, e.g. warming of oceans + ocean acidification (more carbonic acid) is hurting the coral reefs, which aren't expected to last very long anymore.

Or these scientists

You could make a similar list of scientists who agree with IPCC findings. I've already taken courses from six professors in three different departments (biology, chemical & civil engineering) who would support IPCC findings, and I know of several more (including a biologist who contributed to IPCC) at my university alone. So I would guess that the list of supporters would be much longer than that list.

Also, on that list of opposing scientists, I would lop off the first and last three. The first one keeps flip-flopping on whether or not warming is occurring, the last three seem to be focused only on specific human benefits and ignoring other effects like ecological harm from global warming.

Or this guy

One man saying that global warming isn't necessarily human-caused and being paid by the nuclear industry doesn't represent the entire scientific community. I could similarly point to a scientist getting funding from the oil industry who says that global warming isn't happening/is beneficial.

Or this guy

Website may be biased. In any case, scientists have been studying global warming for a while (I read an article on it ten years ago, studies have been going on for longer than that), so the whole "new fad" thing doesn't really hold up. It's been getting a lot of attention recently but it's not exactly a "wild-eyed new idea." Again, they're resorting to arguments like "animals have survived on earth for half a billion years," ignoring that animals do go extinct, there have been four mass extinctions in the past, and currently the rate of extinction is approaching a mass extinction rate. I am not blaming the mass extinction rate on global warming. However, global warming does have some effect on ecosystems: maple forests are moving north, pine trees in Colorado are being killed off by bark beetles that can survive longer with slightly warmer climates, bird-insect species mismatches when insects are hatching sooner than normal, etc. Funny how they mention the polar bear to try to support their argument, considering that polar bear populations are in trouble.

Which links to this guy

You should check out the big link posted at the top of that article, indicating that you should read this response, which says "I'll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong - completely wrong." Enough said.

And finally this guy

"It's not even science." I can't take this article seriously anymore. Checking out who originally wrote it: this guy. And again, sure you can point to one scientist who may have bias, but you could also point to scientists funded by the oil industry.

Or you can continue kissing Al Gore's ass.
I guess you may try to convince me that we cause the global warming on Mars too

I'm tired so I didn't get around to these two.

 

[bbson john]

There are several concepts must be made clear first. First of all, it is good to question the theory. If we find a theory with flaws, the first thing we do is not denying the theory. Because certain flaws, if they are not major ones, do not necessarily disprove a theory. This can mean the theory requires subtle amendments, or an alternative special case explaining the flaws. When you find a problem in the anthropogenic global warming theory, don't deny it immediately. Try do more searching on the internet and be discreet on what is right and what is wrong.

Whilst anthropogenic global warming is a theory supported by various data, physics theories and historical facts, a well-structured should not be denied unless we have a better alternative theory. What is your alternative theory on global warming? Moreover, it matters when you randomly utter a wrong theory on the Internet. If people are not paying attention, they may trust your skeptics theory when they visit this thread. People would delay their action on cutting use of energy, hence indirectly delay trimming down of greenhouse gas emission. This is not beneficial at all.

On the scientific evidences side, the temperature drops during 1850-1900 was due to extensive aerosols released by factories This blocking of sunlight leaded to a temporary drop of earth surface temperature. The CO2 greenhouse effect, on the other hand, was delayed by the ocean until early 20th century. The greenhouse overwhelmed aerosol effect since then.

Some say water vapour is a greenhouse gas. It is true. However, water vapour acts as an anti-global warming agent as well. When the concentration of water vapour increases, the density and occurrence of clouds increase. Though water vapour produces greenhouse effect, clouds effectively reflect sunlight away. Also, unlike CO2, there is no rapid increase of the concentration of water vapour during the recent centuries, except for minor increase owing to that the ocean has been heated up by the warming atmosphere. That means though water vapour causes greenhouse effect, it is not the cause of global warming. Therefore, water vapour is not our concern. Actually, there are a number of reasons why water vapour is not a concern but CO2 is, I've just named one here.

Note that, carbon dioxide contributes around 10-25% of global greenhouse effect. Since the beginning of industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has increased by 31%. That is a lot. Let alone other gas such as CH4. In all way, CO2 is highly like the cause of global warming.

Lastly, Fliko, I have read most of the websites you quoted. The websites you have focus on skepticism. The articles within make use of emotionally loaded words and sentences. Lots of them are not based on scientific data or facts. As you can see, very few research results, numbers or theories are listed within the websites. The articles are trying to incite readers emotionally; rather than persuading readers rationally.

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air.

Utterly hilarious. If we are really coming out of a little ice age, as that our ancestors had experienced; where comes the sudden, rapid, unprecedented climb of temperature?

 

[elkaebee]

Utterly hilarious. If we are really coming out of a little ice age, as that our ancestors had experienced; where comes the sudden, rapid, unprecedented climb of temperature?

Your MUM!!!

 

[dfc05]

Thank you Fliko. Your officially my best friend on HL2.net now for shoving a few socks in some mouths and doing my research for me.

BTW: Thanks to Fliko, here's a quote from a **ahem** professional off of the Wiki link that was posted to support my theories. (I knew it was somewhere on the webz, just didn't know where. The user was broken, not Google.):



Now then. Kiss my ass naysayers.

This part right here where you give in to your self-admitted, non-scientific-based biases and accept all the skeptic's arguments with open arms, while slamming all the scientific arguments agreeing with the IPCC findings..... this makes me sad .

I've at least bothered to go through and read Fliko's sources, but it seems you are unwilling to do the same for anyone who posts anything contrary to your (self-admitted) opinion.

If you would like more links, I'll go ahead and put the IPCC out there:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Here is another link, although it is old (1997):
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
See the "Contents" section on the right-hand side

http://www.pewclimate.org/

One of many articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Check out the References at the end for more, although it might be difficult to get access to most articles without some kind of university library subscription.

Beyond this, I might suggest checking with a university in your area for professors giving free public lectures about the topic if you are seriously interested in the topic, as that might be more effective than looking up links on the internet.

 

[VirusType2]

Humans are damaging the planet in so many ways, it really makes me sad. Most people can't see the effects of global warming with their own eyes, however here are some things humans do where the damage can be seen:

If you don't believe, or can't do anything about global warming, here are some ways you can make a huge difference.


Things humans are doing wrong (off the top of my head, hopefully I hit all the major ones):

overpopulation (please stop having 10+ children, we are not colonizing a new planet)
over hunting a particular species
destroying important species for their value as clothing, jewelry, etc.
pollution (dumping chemicals irresponsibly by corporations and citizens, leaving car running while not in use, disposing of solid or liquid waste trash into water systems or onto ground where it will seep into water)
litter
cutting down nearly all forests
wasting paper
entirely killing off important species
endangering or causing extinction of almost every kind of wildlife
wasting energy - leaving lights on, poor driving habits, improperly inflated tires, etc.)
dumping chemicals
discharging freon from Air Conditioner Units for example when disposing of the unit improperly.
killing animals for sport
intentionally killing insects that are in their own habitat and not bothering you
killing plants that aren't even on your property, for ... fun?
urinating or dedicating into streams, lakes, rivers, even swimming pools.]

(Some of you may laugh, just like in Sex Education class)


At least try to make a difference yourself.

If you see someone doing these kinds of things, if possible, at least try to change them. I've changed so many people. Some people don't want to be told what to do. So instead, for example, if you are with a friend who drops some trash on the ground, pick up their trash for them this time and say, "oh, I'll throw it out" and they may realize it's important not to do it.

Besides being ugly when I drive down the street and there is trash littering the side of the road, some of it releases chemicals when exposed to high heat, animals may digest it, cut them selves on broken glass, nails, etc, and other detrimental effects.

I really like this planet. It's one of a kind. It's really a shame that we have the capacity to irreparably damage it, but not the capacity to live on it properly.

It is a wonderful amazing world with incredible species. The planet and sun, and moon, and oceans, and mountains, it's all so intricately balanced. From the tiny insects to humans ourselves, it really is amazing. If we don't start treating Earth right, the planet has ways of getting rid of us. The planet is alive, and subtle changes can have huge effects. It's so much beyond our capacity to understand everything about this planet, but we do know many of the things we do causes damage, so why not put a stop to the ones you are doing whenever possible?

planting new trees = good idea. It can take hundreds of years to grow a tree, but only minutes to destroy one. Better get started planting.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

To be fair, I'll withdraw my belief on my statements about the climate's current state as well as global warming IF you can provide a link explaining why I should believe current research and link(s) describing scientific theory. (the OPs link is not enough) That is fair right? :upstare:

Its not up to us to prove anything. We have the vast majority of experts behind us. Get off your ****ing lazy ass and read a goddamned book for once.

 

[Saturos]

Its not up to us to prove anything. We have the vast majority of experts behind us. Get off your ****ing lazy ass and read a goddamned book for once.

I read books everyday FYI. Just not on climatology. I do work quite hard at my major(s), so it's my privilege to be lazy every now and then. :upstare:

BTW, why did you bleep out "f***king" and not "goddamned"? Is "f***king" an even greater dirty wordy or something? They do that s*** on South Park too.

 

[Dan]

* every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992;
* the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15;
* every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976;
* the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25;
* every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956; and
* every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917.

The title of this should have been How to confuse the shit out of somebody who doesn't understand statistics. Saying that every year since XXXX has been hotter than XXXX is of no relevance to global warming, and it only obfuscates the issue to people who don't fully understand the statistic. What they are doing is just going backwards in time taking the record lows.

Say that Feb 5 2007 was the coldest day in the last two years. It would not be unreasonable or particularly indicative of anything for that to happen. You could then say that every day since Feb 5, 2007 has been warmer than Feb 5, 2007, making it sound like something sinister is going on. The simple fact of the matter is that a record low has to fall on a certain day. As you go back in time you have a larger sample space, so you will tend to come to new record lows further back in time.

In fact if you were to assume a normal distribution of temperature about a fixed average (so the average global temperature is constant) you would expect to see a pattern almost exactly like they describe. The length of time until you hit the next record low will tend to exponentially increase as you go back in time. For an infinite range with a constant average temperature, you would eventually come to some year like 10000 BC where it was really cold just by the natural law of averages (You have to sample about 12000 years before you get a really extremely cold outlier). You can say that every year since has been warmer, and the same thing would occur again at 20000 BC (you have to sample 22000 years before you get an even more extreme outlier) and so on ad infinitum.

I am not saying that their statistic proves or refutes global warming, I am saying that it is very irrelevant, and misleading to the point they are supposedly trying to make (Personally I think the whole point is to confuse people). You could use statistical analysis to draw a conclusion from the data they give, but it would be much easier to get a valid conclusion from the raw temperature data.

And to people who bitch about hurting the planet: grow up. The planet doesn't have feelings; it's a lump of iron and nickel. It'll keep spinning, so worry about yourself if you have to have something to worry about. Don't take on the imaginary problems of an object with trillions of times your mass with a bit of fuzz on the outside.

P.S. and the relevance of the other statistic, "The X hottest years on record occurred in the last X years" needs to be qualified with how far back the records go.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Apparently temperatures between 1850-1900 fell, yet surely man made CO2 increased during that period.

It could be attributed to copious amounts of pollution not uncommon during those times. Pollution actually reflects sunlight and can cause cooling. Temperatures rose over the US after 9/11 when all air traffic was grounded. No notable increase was seen north of the border, where there is considerably less air traffic.

 

[Vegeta897]

The title of this should have been How to confuse the shit out of somebody who doesn't understand statistics. Saying that every year since XXXX has been hotter than XXXX is of no relevance to global warming, and it only obfuscates the issue to people who don't fully understand the statistic. What they are doing is just going backwards in time taking the record lows.

etc.

I was thinking this when I first saw those statistics but didn't know how to say it as well as you've just done. Thank you sir.

 

[kattmat]

I guess you may try to convince me that we cause the global warming on Mars too[/URL]

Did you even read that article? There are several reasons stated in that article that explains why this is bullshit.

We have problems understanding the details of Earth's climate, so we are not in a position to make connections between Mars and Earth. What we do know about Mars is that it has a much greater polar wobble and more drastic climate changes. It also have a completely different atmospheric composition and much of the climate is driven by the amounts of dust in the atmosphere. The interaction between these factors is not completely understood and you should not take advantage of this confusion in a global warming debate.

 

[Top Secret]

As someone who has always resisted the global warming movement, I feel it is my duty to clarify that I do believe that the earth is warming, however I think anyone an idiot who believes we have even a quarter of one percent of the control of the temperature of this planet. Do people really think that the co2 emissions of several hundred million cars is even visible on a direct ratio graph showing valcano vs automobile output? Furthermore, h20 vapor is the scary greenhouse gas, not co2.

 

[Beerdude26]

What Virustype said. Even if global warming is solely due to non-human activities, we're still ****ing up this planet pretty badly.

 

[Eejit]

As someone who has always resisted the global warming movement, I feel it is my duty to clarify that I do believe that the earth is warming, however I think anyone an idiot who believes we have even a quarter of one percent of the control of the temperature of this planet. Do people really think that the co2 emissions of several hundred million cars is even visible on a direct ratio graph showing valcano vs automobile output? Furthermore, h20 vapor is the scary greenhouse gas, not co2.

It's net CO2 production that is the problem. There is a thing called homeostasis. Lots and lots of CO2 is produced naturally, and sequestered naturally. We however are releasing thousands of years worth of carbon dioxide fixation back into the atmosphere through our use of fossil fuels.

The H2O 'problem' has already been discussed twice on this thread, but thanks for fulfilling your duty.

But yep, we're the idiots.
I mean, you may have heard some bullshit argument and taken it at face value without looking into it further, rather than thinking "really, is H2O the problem?" and then done a bit of research and found out why it isn't, like us idiots.

 

[bbson john]

As someone who has always resisted the global warming movement, I feel it is my duty to clarify that I do believe that the earth is warming, however I think anyone an idiot who believes we have even a quarter of one percent of the control of the temperature of this planet. Do people really think that the co2 emissions of several hundred million cars is even visible on a direct ratio graph showing valcano vs automobile output? Furthermore, h20 vapor is the scary greenhouse gas, not co2.

So you disregard my statement. Okay, I repose it. "Some say water vapour is a greenhouse gas. It is true. However, water vapour acts as an anti-global warming agent as well. When the concentration of water vapour increases, the density and occurrence of clouds increase. Though water vapour produces greenhouse effect, clouds effectively reflect sunlight away. Also, unlike CO2, there is no rapid increase of the concentration of water vapour during the recent centuries, except for minor increase owing to that the ocean has been heated up by the warming atmosphere. That means though water vapour causes greenhouse effect, it is not the cause of global warming. Therefore, water vapour is not our concern. Actually, there are a number of reasons why water vapour is not a concern but CO2 is, I've just named one here."

In addition, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has increased by 31% since industrial revolution. Although you don't "believe" human can affect global CO2 concentration, it doesn't better whether you believe so as it is fact. Never underestimate the power of human activity. Imagine the total amount of human beings on Earth and how much fossil fuel we burn every day. Comon, you see, there are hundred million of cars. It is certain comparable with, if not greater than, volcanic activity.

Is there any exponential growth of volcanic activity around these three centuries? No. In fact, CO2 released by geologic activities are almost constant for the near thousands years. It is impossible that volcanic CO2 increases global temperature. What induces the recent temperature change must me something that didn't exist until the past few centuries. That is industrial activity.

 

[dfc05]

And to people who bitch about hurting the planet: grow up. The planet doesn't have feelings; it's a lump of iron and nickel. It'll keep spinning, so worry about yourself if you have to have something to worry about. Don't take on the imaginary problems of an object with trillions of times your mass with a bit of fuzz on the outside.

Hey, if you don't care, fair enough, but don't insult those of us who do appreciate the "bit of fuzz" on the planet and actually bother to do something about it. No one is arguing that the world will stop spinning, but will we continue to have the same benefits from the Earth that we do now? Maybe if people had considered this question earlier, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in right now. Time and time again, I'll hear older professors give these global warming lectures and admit that their generation screwed up and now our generation will have to be the one to deal with it, and I think people my age are starting to get bitter that the people currently running our policy decisions won't be the ones who have to deal with their consequences.

To discourage people from caring about the planet is pretty irresponsible. It also belittles all the good work that conservationists have already done. If nobody cared, would we still have bison or bald eagles? It was concerned people that got the Clean Air Act established -- sure the planet doesn't "care" whether the sky is filled with pollutants, but tell that to someone suffering from asthma. If someone spilled oil in your backyard, would you say, "it's ok, because the planet doesn't have feelings!"

 

[Mr Stabby]

Well the planet will be fine, it's us and the other life on earth who are in trouble.

 

[Fliko]

Comments in bold. I'm probably not very convincing to all the skeptics, but I'll try anyways.

I'm not gonna lie, I most definately didn't read the articles in full only skimming through it, but the point of me showing those articles are to prove that there are climatologists and scientists out there who don't believe in Global Warming caused by humans; infact a lot of them.

I'll probably be a global warming skeptic for most of my life and it won't effect you.
It doesn't mean I won't be more green, it doesn't mean I won't drive fuel efficient cars, or recycle. I'm all for going green, seeing as air quality is shit around here, and we are wasting plenty of resources because of being unefficient, but I just don't believe in humans causing global warming, and I don't believe in pile-driving into green as we are doing.

Have I fully researched the theory that global warming isn't caused by humans, and global warming is caused by humans? No, infact, I've barely skimmed the top. Hell, I wouldn't even call it skimming the top.

Ultimately why the hell do you care what I believe? It's not like I'm going to change anything.

 

[repiV]

The real issue here is that the global warming brigade have lost all credibility and respect by virtue of their rabid mob mentality, religious devotion and similarly religious labelling of anyone who doesn't toe the party line as a heretic, use of scare tactics to further a big-government, anti-motorist, conformist society and disregard for the scientific method.

After being subjected to extortionate tax after extortionate tax on nothing more than going about my life in a way that doesn't please the pedal-powered plant lovers, repeatedly mobbed by ignorant twats who know nothing about the climate, and watching industry and the economy go down the tubes because of misguided green bullshit, I really don't give a shit anymore. Arrogant green/communist-in-disguise tossers can go **** themselves.

 

[Solaris]

It's Global Warming gone mad!

 

[[Matt]]

Step one: learn to spell Skeptic.

....

Step 2: Check the person spelling sceptic is using BRITISH ENGLISH as they spell sceptic with a C...

 

[dfc05]

I'm not gonna lie, I most definately didn't read the articles in full only skimming through it, but the point of me showing those articles are to prove that there are climatologists and scientists out there who don't believe in Global Warming caused by humans; infact a lot of them.

If you didn't bother to read the articles yourself, then why bother posting them?

I'll probably be a global warming skeptic for most of my life and it won't effect you.
It doesn't mean I won't be more green, it doesn't mean I won't drive fuel efficient cars, or recycle. I'm all for going green, seeing as air quality is shit around here, and we are wasting plenty of resources because of being unefficient, but I just don't believe in humans causing global warming.

I think this is cool though and I appreciate that.


I guess it just irritates me when people go about spreading misinformation, which is why I usually stay away from these topics since people tend to start feeling insulted. I am no expert in climatology and I won't pretend to be one, but I do try to pay attention to lectures and look things up if I don't know the answer, or look to people who I trust to not lie about the situation (like professors who work on air pollution and atmospheric modeling).

 

[[Matt]]

I know global warming is real, but I haven't really seen anything in Vancouver that would lead people to think it's getting WARMER, if anything it seems to be getting COLDER - just with a bunch of extreme temperature/weather spikes only lasting a day or two. Winter has been getting longer over the last 3-4 years and spring is starting later, though now we have weird ass 35-42 degree celsius (around 100 degrees fahrenheit) periods spanning up to a week in the summer and 80+ km windstorms during the winter/fall.

Contrary to popular belief global warming man made or otherwise doesn't actually mean warmer weather. What it does mean however is more violent and unpredictable weather patterns including sudden cold patches and violent storms at unusual times of the year... sound familiar?

 

[Dan]

Hey, if you don't care, fair enough, but don't insult those of us who do appreciate the "bit of fuzz" on the planet and actually bother to do something about it. No one is arguing that the world will stop spinning, but will we continue to have the same benefits from the Earth that we do now? Maybe if people had considered this question earlier, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in right now. Time and time again, I'll hear older professors give these global warming lectures and admit that their generation screwed up and now our generation will have to be the one to deal with it, and I think people my age are starting to get bitter that the people currently running our policy decisions won't be the ones who have to deal with their consequences.

To discourage people from caring about the planet is pretty irresponsible. It also belittles all the good work that conservationists have already done. If nobody cared, would we still have bison or bald eagles? It was concerned people that got the Clean Air Act established -- sure the planet doesn't "care" whether the sky is filled with pollutants, but tell that to someone suffering from asthma. If someone spilled oil in your backyard, would you say, "it's ok, because the planet doesn't have feelings!"

You don't even need to worry about that bit of fuzz on the surface either. That bit of fuzz is mostly blue-green algae. It has survived atmosphere changes, meteorites that covered the planet in dust, changes that are far greater than anything you or all of humanity could control. Extinction isn't anything bad. Species come and go all the time. Not every form of life is hardy enough to stick around.

Like I said, go worry about yourself. That is where the problems of asthma and spilled oil in your backyard belong. If someone spilled oil in my backyard, I would say "It's not okay, because I live next to that, and it is toxic and smelly." I don't give a shit about the planet's imaginary feelings; oil came from the earth anyways.

 

[Fliko]

I guess it just irritates me when people go about spreading misinformation, which is why I usually stay away from these topics since people tend to start feeling insulted.

Just to clarify I am not at all insulted that you picked apart my post, and no one should ever get insulted in a debate, because debates are usually best when heated.

 

[dfc05]

You don't even need to worry about that bit of fuzz on the surface either. That bit of fuzz is mostly blue-green algae. It has survived atmosphere changes, meteorites that covered the planet in dust. Extinction isn't anything bad. Species come and go all the time. Not every form of life is hardy enough to stick around.

Like I said, go worry about yourself. That is where the problems of asthma and spilled oil in your backyard belong.

Sure, species go extinct. But the rate of extinction is currently much higher than the background rate. Sure, not everything is hardy enough to stick around, but there's no harm in trying to help them stick around.

And what I was trying to get at with worrying about problems beyond yourself, was that the things we contribute to affect other people. How can someone fix their own problems when other people are causing them? Example: air pollution being dispersed long distances downwind from the source, water pollution traveling to people downstream. I guess it's a "social responsibility" issue, and whether or not you subscribe to it is obviously your own choice.

 

[Dan]

Sure, species go extinct. But the rate of extinction is currently much higher than the background rate. Sure, not everything is hardy enough to stick around, but there's no harm in trying to help them stick around.

And what I was trying to get at with worrying about problems beyond yourself, was that the things we contribute to affect other people. How can someone fix their own problems when other people are causing them? Example: air pollution being dispersed long distances downwind from the source, water pollution traveling to people downstream. I guess it's a "social responsibility" issue, and whether or not you subscribe to it is obviously your own choice.

Worrying about society is hardly the same as worrying about the planet. Hyperbole like that just begs people to argue with you. Like I said before, the planet, is a lump of iron and nickel. If you mean something else, then use a different word.

And take a look at any major extinction event in the last few hundred million years. We are definitely not at the maximum rate of extinction that the planet has witnessed many times in the past.

 

[dfc05]

The planet is where we live. We depend on the current conditions that we have on this planet for things like food, water, and clean air. If we dirty up our living space, people will be affected. If you really want to argue semantics, I will start using the word "biosphere" in place of "the Earth" and argue how changing abiotic factors affects the biosphere. Like I said before, I was never arguing that the planet as a lump of rock was going to stop spinning. Just that the biosphere as we know it is changing.

As for the extinction rate:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html

Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway. The evidence is pieced together from details drawn from all over the world, but it adds up to a disturbing picture. This time, unlike the past, it's not a chance asteroid collision, nor a chain of climatic circumstances alone that's at fault. Instead, it is chiefly the activities of an ever-growing human population, in concert with long-term environmental change.

The background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with). In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/12/eared112.xml

According to the World Conservation Union, (IUCN) which draws up the annual List, the extinction rate is up to 10,000 higher than expected.

Human activity causing loss of habitat through urbanisation, agriculture and deforestation combined with climate change is revealed to be the biggest threat to plants and animals.

There are now 41,415 species on the Red List and 16,306 are threatened with extinction, up from 16,118 last year. The total number of extinct species has reached 785 and a further 65 are only found in captivity or in cultivation.

The Red List is recognised as the most reliable evaluation of the world's species which it classifies according to their extinction risk. Its publication is the latest wake-up call to the pressures facing the earth's fragile ecosystems and its consequences for mankind.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html

Yet most scientists agree that human activity is causing rapid deterioration in biodiversity. Expanding human settlements, logging, mining, agriculture and pollution are destroying ecosystems, upsetting nature's balance and driving many species to extinction.

There is virtual unanimity among scientists that we have entered a period of mass extinction not seen since the age of the dinosaurs, an emerging global crisis that could have disastrous effects on our future food supplies, our search for new medicines, and on the water we drink and the air we breathe. Estimates vary, but extinction is figured by experts to be taking place between 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural "background" extinction.

 

[Dan]

You still haven't explained why extinction in and of itself is so bad. The Permian-Triassic extinction wiped out 95% of all species. Does that make it bad? Was something evil at work? Or was it just nature? If volcanoes caused it, does that make the volcanoes evil? No. But if we caused it, you would definitely say that we are bad. I think that is hypocritical.

Your article also doesn't mention that the diversity now is also much higher than the base rate of diversity. We currently have many times more variety of species than in the Triassic. If you go back to the Precambrian, there hardly existed 1/100th as many species as there are today.

In fact, since we are judging everything by the background level, which is apparently intrinsically good, it would require an extinction event to lower the diversity back to the background level. Heck, for 1/3 of the Earth's existence, there was no life at all. That must have been a terribly bad time. Because diversity equals good according to you. So the first few billion years of the universe were bad, the moon is bad for not having life, the sun is bad, it has no diversity. Only the exact state that things were in just before humans evolved is good. I am being sarcastic here.

And none of the articles you have pointed to have stated that the current rate of extinction is higher than previous extinction events. They say that we may be building up to an extinction event. If you read my words, I never argued otherwise. I said that extinction events have occurred in the past that have killed many more species at a much higher rate than the present day.