Global Warming Consensus

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by Dan4510:

quote:

Originally posted by ScottB:
"... There are LOTS of natural cycles that we may know or not know, and that we may have been able to quantify to some extent. Good for us to keep learning, it is what we must do. But to claim that our data set is complete and that we have it all figured out is showing extrordinary faith in what is likely only scratching the surface as far as chemical, environmental and other related cycles go."

And for you
cheers.gif
I buy the beer.

Scott


So in other words, we do not know what we do not know. Our approach to global warming with what we know today is comparable to using leaches to regulate the humors in the human body, finding it doesnt work and conclude that more leaches will fix the problem. Yes, there is a politic metaphor in there.

Dan


Being a good steward in the spirit of the best that we know today is an admirable trait.

Being strongly polarized one way or another, in this or any other argument is not beneficial to anyone, and just causes gridlock.

Just because we know or dont know something doesnt mean that we shouldnt make a good faith effort to reduce our impact, however small or large it is, as much as we can.

JMH
 
"Just because we know or dont know something doesnt mean that we shouldnt make a good faith effort to reduce our impact, however small or large it is, as much as we can."

Of course.
The problem is, the "sky is falling" crowd want to use what relatively little data we do have and state that this evidence proves something.
It may, it may not.
I'm all for getting smarter and more "planet friendly" but the Prius-driving crowd need to step back and quit playing on emotions.

I'm sorry, but with 5-billion years of planetary history, 200 years of data (give or take) is insignificant.

As I said earlier - scientists were screaming the second ice-age when I was a kid. Where are we now? 180° to the opposite.

Scott
 
I find it selfishly adventageous of those who benefit from this whole global warming debate that this issue comes up in late spring/early summer every year.

You don't hear about 'global warming' with the same frog-like repetitive intensity in winter time. Likewise when Europe had their HOT summer a year or two ago.

Hmmm. Politics, maybe? nahhh. never! LOL

Global warming is fuzzy math: it's relies on a bad Al Gore-ithm.
wink.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Dan4510:
Anyone who understands statisical analysis would understand that the more variables loaded into a model, each with its own set of unjustifiable assumptions, clouds the validity of the analysis.

And statistically, the 150 years of temperature data dont carry much weight in terms of the millions of years of temperature data that is out there that we dont have.

Its like saying that if we get 7 heads and 3 tails in flipping a coin 10 times, that we assume that the coin is lopsided or weighted unequally, when if we flip the coin 1000 times, it would approach 500/500.

I'm not saying youre wrong in any way. Data suggests what it does. Nobody denies that volcanos, meteorites, and whatever other things go on add more mass to the earth than people do. But people still do have their impact, like it or not.

Carbon cycles may reproduce fuel precursors, but the timescales of their production do not match in any way our useage rates.

There are LOTS of natural cycles that we may know or not know, and that we may have been able to quantify to some extent. Good for us to keep learning, it is what we must do. But to claim that our data set is complete and that we have it all figured out is showing extrordinary faith in what is likely only scratching the surface as far as chemical, environmental and other related cycles go.

JMH
 
The man or woman (just in case)who made this rock we currently occupy did a pretty good job of installing many regulators. If in fact we are warming the planet, then the atmosphere will become moisture ladden and we'll get the resulting cloud cover, which will bring rain and will cool us. As superior as we may think we are, we may be able to cause localzed damage (LOVE CANAL - @ NIAGRA FALLS, HIROSHIMA, CHERNOBYL, etc)but I doubt we can impact the weather for any serious stretch of time?
 
Global warming may or may not be caused by humans, but the proponents of that belief should think about a few things when they're wondering while people aren't buying into the alleged impending doom.

People have noticed that some of the same folks who warned us of the new ice age in the 70's are now telling us we should worry about global warming. We never got the new ice age did we? Nor did we get mass starvation, worldwide plagues, or a new dark age from Y2K. There's always a new thing right around the corner that's going to cause TEOTWAWKI. It just never happens. So people accept that chicken little is alive and well and go on about their lives.

People have noticed that most of the data about global warming is based on indirect measurements, speculation, models, and simulations. People trust what they can see, not what someone else is predicting. This is how a few measurements today of temperatures on other planets can trump all the simulations in the world.

On one hand, other places without SUV's and evil corporations are getting warmer. On the other hand, we're supposed to accept that here on this planet, those are the things causing our planet to become warmer.

People notice that the scientists can't predict the 48 hour weather with a 50% success rate. Yet scientists claim they can somehow determine the climate 5, 10, or 100 years down the road. That's pretty hard sell don't you think?

People also wonder why scientists tell us in the past while there were no SUV's or smokestacks the earth has seen much warmer periods than now. Then it was part of a natural cycle. But not this time!

And those same scientists tend to be supported by $$ set aside to study this problem in one form or another. No problem = No funding. If that doesn't make for a conflict of interest, nothing does.

People notice that treaties like Kyoto don't really reduce the production of greenhouse gas so much as they transfer $$ and the ability to pollute to third world countries. Are we worried about pollution, or pollution but only as long as it's in the west? Why is it the west has to curtail it's activities while giving developing countries a free pass? We are worried about pollution right?

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons while people question the whole thing. But until the true believers can answer a few of the questions above in a reasonable fashion instead of calling nonbelievers sheep, fools, or idiots, I'd expect them to be unable to get much support for their theories...
 
Most here have made up their mind either by reading, and thinking. Half of us are wrong. Ultimately it won't matter what scientists think. Joe Sixpack will continue to wast fuel bc he can.

And as for Politicians, its an angenda thing. Republicans don't believe in global warming bc its bad (they think) for business. Democrats believe in it bc they are not particularly interested in business except how it benefits the "working man".
We're all on the Titanic driven by a crew of fools..E.J. Smith at the helm.
frown.gif
 
A lot of great posts as usual from well informed people. Al kind of summed it up for me. What I hate about issues like this, are how polar they become in the political realm. On one side you have the Republicans, who don't acknowledge the issue enough, and the Democrats who insist the world is over. Both play to the bases which support them. Sucks for people like myself, who are usually in the middle and have to sift through the info/hype/propaganda to determine what is going on. Which I should do anyway. But when elections roll around, these issues BECOME HUGE and 9 times out of 10 exagerated and distorted.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Sepultura:
been 104 to 108 here the last few days, i think global warming is just a myth.

Yeah, because Cali never saw those temps before today.
Or before 1950
Or before 1900
etc.
etc.

rolleyes.gif
 
If anyone isn't interested in what Al Gore has to say in his documentary ' An Inconvenient Truth' maybe you should listen to Stephen Hawking, who is one of the greatest theoretical physicist's of our day. Many believe Hawking to be the greatest mind since Einstein. Professor Hawking has held the post of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge since 1980 which Sir Isaac Newton also held in 1669.

To make this brief, Hawking believes that global warming is one of the greatest issues of our day and he asserts that we are largely to blame. If we don't acknowledge that global warming is here, it will increase. Our children and our children's children will greatly suffer because of our shortsightedness and lack of wisdom. We can stop global warming if we unite on a global scale to curb co2. Ironically there is a high degree of probability that if global warming is allowed to continue, it may trigger another ice age which could last for 100,000 years.

Go see Gore's documentary, it's very sobering.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp
 
Yet again, with hawking we have someone outside their area of expertise giving advice. I do not argue that he is a great scientist, however, i would argue that his conclusions are suspect on the subject of global warming.

The same for Al Gore, despite the wonderful job he did as Vice President, I seriously doubt he has the scientific education that would support any of his arguments.

Additionally, any argument that says human activity is contriubting 100% to the problem is suspect due to measurement error, modeling error, and the political agenda undergirding all of this.

Dan
 
quote:

Originally posted by Dan4510:
I do not argue that he is a great scientist, however, i would argue that his conclusions are suspect on the subject of global warming.

I really don't think it takes a genious to add up the facts.
 
Al,

Yet again, what facts are you talking about, it seems only a belief system. You keep ignoring pertinent facts I have put in this thread again and again.

Maybe you ought to study some without your obvious bias.

Just because something is asserted again and again does not prove its truth.

One place i recommend is http://www.globalwarming.org/

this site has cutting edge researh that is research not regurgigated opinion

Dan
 
Wow, that is amazing, your info has no bias and mine has bias no matter what is brought up.

Now I understand how this works, bring up sound reasoned arguments against global warming and the assumption is that global warming is right and everything else is wrong by default.

I ask you to support your case other than by empty assertion. If its true that man is the sole cause, support it. Further up this line of argument I challenged you to bring forth supporting informatin for your argument and I have yet to see such. I have put forth information from several scientists that are acknowledged to be formost in their field. I have yet to see such supporting info from you.

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom