[QUOTE=PSI-KILLER;170910]To say Earths climate must always stay the same because we humans say so is the most arrogant concept especially when there has never existed a period of perfect balance and harmony in the weather.[/quote]
True enough. But to say "we wish to stabilize climate, or at least counteract excesses, just long enough for us to grow invulnerable to its whims", is a less pretentious and less arrogant wish. I personally hold that one. I don't want climate stabilized forever. I only want it nudged towards stability... let's say... until people can use fusion for electricity generation.
Excesses of climate can easily cause poverty, which tends to make people irritable and easier to manipulate... and the latter generally manifests as conflict. Since the choice of weapons is a bit too impressive, and the choice of alternative living places non-existent, I am quite concerned about whether human kind can keep a relative peace until it grows at least slightly independent of Earth.
[quote]We are going to have to pay more carbon taxes to a politician/organization when there is no proof these taxes will make the earth "cooler", the only reality is a richer politican.[/quote]
That is a concern of mine too. To reduce that concern, I don't advocate legislative or regulatory action to reduce pollution and increase self-sufficiency. I limit myself to recommending that people do something about it directly. I'm sure that enough of folks will be calling for regulations anyway, so I stay out of that, lest it be overdone.
(And sure, it may still get overdone.)
From that viewpoint, if enough people do act on their own, without regulations or demands... perhaps the priority placement mentioned in the beginning of this thread... isn't as bad as it seems. Because if people want, this looks like something which *can* be extensively alleviated without leveraging political power.
[QUOTE=Vertigo_1;170913]That's interesting, because I've heard the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]
Strange. It seems suspiciously like an order-of-magnitude error, perhaps from someone comparing one figure in tons, against another figure in thousands of tons.
When I looked at Wikipedia's list of human CO2 emissions by administrative unit ( [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_emissions[/url] ) the world total seems to be 27'245'758 thousand metric tons (== 27'245'758'000 tons).
Meanwhile the article on carbon dioxide suggests that its production from volcanic sources is a maximum of 255 million tons (== 255'000'000 tons) per year, and goes on to state that human production is about 130 times greater, which seems to be a large enough margin to weigh out in favour of humans, even if some natural proesses have accidentally been counted as human emissions.
The source menioned by Wikipedia is the US Geological Survey website (what their sources are, I didn't check).
Natural carbon has carbon taken out of the air slowly. after a wile it makes enough difference to make snowball Earth. To say the whole Earth is covered with snow.
Volcanoes erupt and add carbon to the air. The air warms the snow melts.
Has happened twice as I recall reading it.
The whole Earth has had enough carbon in the air at one time to melt almost all the snow.
Is there any one here who thinks the air doesn't warm and cool on a global level?
I don't want to see any one writing that know one here thinks it doesn't.
A history graph of global temperature will show that.
The whole point is how much of a change are humans making.
If you think we can mine and drill out of the Earth and turn it into air and it will make no difference check out what the vast majority of scientist have to say.
Not what you want it to be.
Not too terribly long ago, I was watching a show either on discovery channel, or history channel, about global warming or ice ages or something along those line. It gave a rather... impartial view as a whole, as it had experts who viewed it one way, and experts who viewed it another. Most of these experts, almost outright contradicted each other, as would be expected, and focused on the here and now. However, one of these experts, focused on historical trends, and pointed out that we're actually recovering from a mini ice-age that started in like the 1600's or something to that effect. He also pointed out that, around this time, the earth as a whole had a 4+ degree drop in average temperature over the course of about as many years, and we've only recently begun to warm back up again.
Now, by itself that might not mean much. But, a few weeks ago I was watching a similar show on the History channel, this one specifically about global warming. This one was pretty biased, had all these fancy graphs and computer animations and everything showing some really doomsday scenarios. But one thing they showed 2 or 3 times during the course of the show, really stood out. They had a graph that showed the average, planetary temperature for something on the order of the last 650 million years, as indicated by fossil records and the like. And while they focused on where we stood "now" in this graph and our current climate trend, it showed, as a whole, a climate pattern that actually supported the comments made by the expert on the other show. That we're indeed still recovering from a cooler period and that this planet has historically been warmer. Not that we're warmer than we should be, but that we're getting back to where we should be.
Now, please don't drag me over the coals for the numbers and what not I have listed. I watched the one show months ago and both of them were at like 2am while suffering from case of insomnia. While my memory isn't quite clear on the numbers, I wasn't suffering from sleep deprivation enough start hallucinating about what was being said. But in all seriousness, this is the current "sensation" that the news agencies and TV and the like can spew out for ratings. Wasn't it asteroids a few years ago? And diseases before that? Hell, half the arguments that I hear in favor of a "global warming crisis" are hypothesis about what COULD happen if it's left unchecked, not historical facts or the like. Just watch, in 6 months or a year, they'll come up with some other crisis to scare up some ratings.
Don't misunderstand. I firmly believe that we should do everything in our power to preserve this planet. We're not leaving it any time soon and we really should be trying to ensure that it's still habitable for our great great great great grandchildren and they're not inheriting the ashes of a dead world.
[URL="http://forums.firstones.com/member.php?u=77"]Melkor[/URL]: As I have stated, yes the planet has been warmer, yes the planet has been cooler. Some models say we are exiting a relatively short period of cool, others say we should be in an ice age right now. The question is are we warming too fast?
That Nature doesn't [b][i]ALWAYS[/i][/b] use a gradual scale for change over time. She can be just as drastic as any human cause for change.
Asteroid impacts, Caldera (Super Volcano) eruptions (such as Toba), etc can be agents of immediate change (in a geological scale).
I remember a bit of research done a few years back that suggested that the last Ice Age ended in a mass melt in the span of about 20 years.
There is also the strong possibility that an increase in global overall temperatures can cause an Ice Age because of the precipitation that is increased and changes in Ocean current that will redirect the warm water currents etc.
Instead of Global Warming, the term Climate Change is way more accurate. In that it seems that the variables are more extreme in both directions rather than a general calm or low variation.
Who really knows?
:)
Is man contributing to the variables and the change, that is an easy yes. ;)
[QUOTE=Chaosed;170989]Scientist, what do they know? Pay them no mind. Don't listen to Bush the Bloody ether, He supports the scientist now. At least on this front.[/QUOTE]People with bad grammars, conspiracy theories, and doomsday predictions, what do they know? Pay them no mind. I know I don't.[QUOTE=David of Mac;170988]How about we not talk about fear-mongering in politics, lest the discussion turn in a new and unpleasant direction?[/QUOTE]For every completely wild, biased, and baseless generalization someone else can make up, I can make one up with a completely disparate viewpoint - and it can be just as valid!
As far as I can see any discussion based on facts ended half a dozen posts ago. I'm more than willing to trade hyperbole until that changes.
Vertigo brought up an excellent point and didn't even realize it.
If you browse though popular science magazines, newspapers, and health magazines you will find a lot of articles which start with "A new study found.." and then proceeds to treat this new study as gospel truth. There is enough research in most fields where you can find a peer reviewed study to back up any claim. This was very evident when it came to the hormone supplement for menopausal women debatical a couple years go where one bit of research came out saying it was ok, and then another study was published shortly after that said it was bad.
One should not look at individual studies for gospel truth but look at the body of research as a whole. Last year when I looked at this the rate of change of greenhouse gasses and average global temperatures are mostly only seen from when giant flood basalt flows erupted -- the ones that have been responsible for most of the mass extinctions in Earth's history.
people often retreat into the details when they can't face a broader truth
it's not so much 'fear mongering' as 'fear exposing'.
whilst Vert wont admit it, he's one of the guys with the shovel at one end of the whole, filling in what most others are busy trying to dig up...
climate change is a massively complex issue, if you try dealing with it as a series of discreet systems, you fail. it's also massively interconnected, only a 'generalisation' or more properly, a 'broad scope of discussion' is going to have any hope of encompassing the issues.
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171034]Making fun of my grammar. Not much else to support your side of the argument then.[/QUOTE]I take much more issue with what you're saying rather than how you say it.
Is man dangerously influencing global climates? What scientific data supports this, and what scientific data would tend to support a different conclusion? These are all valid questions, ones that could prompt a long and interesting discussion. While I generally keep an eye on such discussions here, I'm generally not motivated to participate. Frankly, I've looked at factual sources and come to the conclusion that I couldn't care less.
What does dismay me is when people like you start to turn it into an "us vs them" sort of discussion. You have your opinion on the severity of climate change, and I have mine. Mine is based upon the facts I've seen, and I'm not going to insult you by saying that your opinion is less valid.
Escept, that's what you've done to me and people who believe as I do. You, earlier, said that this debate is between the "Union of Concerned Scientist" (intelligent people who care) and the "Union of How it is Wanted to be" (ignorant people, or worse, people with malicious intent against all mankind). Everyone who does not believe as you do is lumped into this ignorant category. I take issue with this, and I think anyone who wants a fruitful discussion should take issue as well, regardless of whether they think global warming spells the doom of our race or not.
What got everyone's feathers ruffled was that I responded with remarks that were just as baseless, and just as biased, just biased in a completely opposite direction. If you are allowed to paint yourself as an intelligent, level-headed intellectual and your opponents as short-sighted and ignorant, then why am I not allowed to do the same?
There's a way to have this discussion without it devolving into rhetoric. This is not it.[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171045]people often retreat into the details when they can't face a broader truth
it's not so much 'fear mongering' as 'fear exposing'.
whilst Vert wont admit it, he's one of the guys with the shovel at one end of the whole, filling in what most others are busy trying to dig up...[/quote]The same thing happens here. Not only am I apparently incapable of facing the "truth" (more accurately, shadow boxer's opinions and conclusions), but I am depicted as attempting to actively stymie the efforts of those who are presumably trying to save the planet. All this for merely having a difference of opinion with him!
I try to buy energy-efficient PSUs in the PCs I build. I rode my bike to work for most of the summer. I try my best to minimize my "carbon footprint" or whatever it's called these days without making my life less convenient. I do it because it makes sense in my mind for me to be energy efficient - if that has the side effect of saving the planet, I really don't care.
Yet from shadow boxer's description of me, you'd think I was driving my Hummer (EDIT: I do not own one, nor does anyone in my immediate family) two hundred miles every day just to prove I could, leaving all the lights on in my house just because I could, and running around building coal-burning factories everywhere. All I have done so far is disagree with him on the internet. With no other knowledge into my lifestyle or mindset, I am labeled as someone who is actively trying to harm the enviornment. All of this from someone who started a thread intended not to present evidence about climate change, or foster intelligent discussion about climate change, but instead to complain about the fact that the course of a foreign country's politics aren't lining up with his agenda. Again, how dare anyone disagree with him, be it some random person on the internet or the political leadership of a sovereign country?[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171045]climate change is a massively complex issue, [b]if you try dealing with it as a series of discreet systems, you fail[/b]. it's also massively interconnected, only a 'generalisation' or more properly, a 'broad scope of discussion' is going to have any hope of encompassing the issues.[/QUOTE]You see? If one does not approach the issue exactly as he does, they fail! How dare anyone think differently than you!
And people accuse Americans of being arrogant. I don't know what kind of person you are outside of this forum, but the posts I see in front of me reek of arrogance. Again, not because of what you say, but because of the closed-minded, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong attitude with which you say it.
Croxis, I'm not mad at Vertigo. Even at his personal attack.
He would have to do something a lot worse then this before I think little of him.
I haven't made an effort to put in links so I'm not supporting my arguments with easy access.
I've given the names to look up if being informed is a real objective though.
1) The UN got together the climatologist and they say humans make it worse.
Not everyone of them but around 90%
Be concerned if they all agree on anything.
Opinion? I don't give a Rats but about opinion. I wants facts. The people who do the science, 90%ish of them, say humans are making it worse.
If your not a scientist and in the field of climatology your opinion is based on what a shrinking minority think.
*) Defend your side then. I still think you see what you want to see. I say that with out going outside of the argument. That isn't calling anyone stupid it is calling people uninformed though.
---- don't -- look --for --- insults --!---
*) One of us is wrong here. I don't think it is me.
So there for,--->
Heres the 'I'm right and your wrong' attitude.
I think I'm right.
With better information I will think different things, so then, once again I will be right.
This includes religion, abortion, diet, B5 and everything.
Things I don't know enough about I don't discuss except to get more information. Gun control for one.
I will respond. I'm over the bad grammar makes me wrong thing. Even before I stopped laughing at it. ;)
if you keep punching needless holes in the ideas of those trying to do something about it, you are just as bad as the ignorant and apathetic
you give creedence and validation to those who want to sit on their arse and do nothing but make the problem worse
if you have no problem with being energy efficient and doing the supposed right thing, great. Just shut up with the devil's advocate bullshit. Find another worthy underdog to shore up and support.
(I should at this point, point out, Devil's advocacy and underdog support is something I do frequently. To the point where I catch myself enjoying the disruption as much as I enjoy the cause...)
I'm not steam rolling dissent, seeing as you're not really dissenting... all you are doing is piping up basically because you can. I'm sure you'd be the guy at the back of the Viking longboat listening to a rousing war speech from the Captain, who pipes up at the end with a few doubts and concerns...
...and then tossed over the side with some fresh knife wounds. :P
I remember about five years ago, smoke from fires in Mexico drifted across the gulf and positively suffused the air in Florida. It was two or three days before it had faded away. That stuff doesn't just go away.
if you keep punching needless holes in the ideas of those trying to do something about it, you are just as bad as the ignorant and apathetic
you give creedence and validation to those who want to sit on their arse and do nothing but make the problem worse[/quote]It's called free speech, and I have a right to it. I could go on a tirade about how you and other environmentalists seek to destroy our way of life, with no reason but some cherry-picked and misrepresented climte data. I could paint you as a clear and present danger to everyone who enjoys apple pie and baseball, one that we have to act now to stop before it's too late.
It would be just as valid as you saying that I'm aiding and abetting those who would destroy the planet merely by disagreeing with you.[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171104]if you have no problem with being energy efficient and doing the supposed right thing, great. Just shut up with the devil's advocate bullshit. Find another worthy underdog to shore up and support.[/quote]I'm not simply playing devil's advocate. I disagree with those who say that man-made interference in the climate has put us on the way to destruction.
So does this mean I'm one of those ignorant and apathetic people you mention?
I [b]choose[/b] to be energy-efficient because it makes sense to me, fiscally first and foremost. However, I would be against any government intervention that forces everyone to behave as conscientiously as I do, or worse, forces me and everyone else to abide by more stringent, undesirable standards, based on a threat that may not exist - or, if it does, one that we may not have the power to stop.[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171104]I'm not steam rolling dissent, seeing as you're not really dissenting...[/quote]Yes, you are, because yes, I am.[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171104]all you are doing is piping up basically because you can. I'm sure you'd be the guy at the back of the Viking longboat listening to a rousing war speech from the Captain, who pipes up at the end with a few doubts and concerns...
...and then tossed over the side with some fresh knife wounds. :P[/quote]I'd love to see a right-wing government take power in your country and draw roughly the same analogy for you when you offer your opinion. Perhaps then you would value the necessity of free speech? Or is speech only free when it agrees with what you think?
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]1) The UN got together the climatologist and they say humans make it worse.
Not everyone of them but around 90%
Be concerned if they all agree on anything. [/quote] The UN has been irrelevant for pretty much the entire 21st century. Perhaps they think that this issue makes them so?[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]Opinion? I don't give a Rats but about opinion. I wants facts.[/quote]Facts are what these scientists are using to make their predictions and form their opinions. Facts are what you are using to form yours. Just because I call it opinion does not mean it is baseless. I have an opinion based on facts, and apparently so do you. However, your opinion is not facts simply because it is based upon facts. Nor is my opinion baseless simply because yours isn't.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]The people who do the science, 90%ish of them, say humans are making it worse. If your not a scientist and in the field of climatology your opinion is based on what a shrinking minority think. [/quote] Since when is science a popularity contest? People thought Einstein was a quack for the longest time. [QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]*) Defend your side then. I still think you see what you want to see. I say that with out going outside of the argument. That isn't calling anyone stupid it is calling people uninformed though.
---- don't -- look --for --- insults --!--- [/quote]You misunderstand me. I don't [b]want[/b] to defend my opinion on the internet. It's a tired argument that's been done over and over, and never with any resolution.
What I will defend until I can't anymore is my right to have my opinion. If you paint those who disagree with you in an unfairly unfavorable light, I will take issue. You'll do a lot better job of defending your point of view if you spend less time talking about how the opposition has their heads in the sand, and more time presenting an argument based on facts to sway people to your opinion.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]Heres the 'I'm right and your wrong' attitude. I think I'm right. With better information I will think different things, so then, once again I will be right. [/quote] This is good. I would be concerned if you disagreed with your own opinion.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]This includes religion, abortion, diet, B5 and everything. Things I don't know enough about I don't discuss except to get more information. Gun control for one.[/quote]How often do people who dislike B5 get the impression you think less of them for not liking it? I would bet it's not often.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]I will respond. I'm over the bad grammar makes me wrong thing. Even before I stopped laughing at it. ;)[/QUOTE]It was never about the grammar. You said (sarcastically) that people should ignore scientists because they don't know what they are talking about. I said (just as sarcastically) that people on the internet don't know what they're talking about. However, I guess you can see how I got the impression you were calling me a luddite if you got the impression I was insulting your grammar.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Vertigo_1;171130]I'd love to see a right-wing government take power in your country[/QUOTE]
Australia just booted out their right-wing government after 11 years. :p (That government that held the opinion that a cautious approach to polluting the atmosphere wasn't worth the cost. The new government promptly sided with the current majority opinion. This is considered one of the reasons the Liberal Party lost, albiet a minor one.)
[QUOTE=Vertigo_1;171131]The UN has been irrelevant for pretty much the entire 21st century.[/QUOTE]
While the UN may be politically toothless and irrelevant, that doesn't immediately make a report compiled by a large group of scientists and published by them based on the work of all other scientists irrelevant or incorrect. The UN is a very large organisation. You can't dismiss something one department produces simply because of the political ineptitude of the core.
[QUOTE=Biggles;171134]Australia just booted out their right-wing government after 11 years. :p [/QUOTE]I was thinking more along the lines of Godwin's Law.
However, I really don't care what government is in power in his country. I merely was trying to illustrate a point about the importance of free speech.
The question is, who do you trust, who do you believe? We can't even predict the local weather correctly, how are we supposed to predict a global climate that is constantly changing? We can't even walk, how are we supposed to run? If we have to choose between the next ice age or global warming, I'm not sure picking the ice age is the smart way to go.
I agree with being more energy efficient and protecting the environment, but I'm very skeptical of what we are being told to be the ultimate truth. There is always a hidden agenda and someone's going to line his pockets with someone else's money. The ever-present enlightened self-interest.
I'm all for being reasonable, the climate is changing, we can see that with our own eyes, we don't need "experts" to tell us. It's changing towards a more chaotic state, with more extreme temperature changes (the rate of change as Croxis mentioned several times already). More so-called "natural" disasters like flooding, drought, snow in usually snowless regions and storms are coming and it's likely just going to get worse.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Stingray;171142]The question is, who do you trust, who do you believe? We can't even predict the local weather correctly, how are we supposed to predict a global climate that is constantly changing? We can't even walk, how are we supposed to run?[/QUOTE]
Actually, predicting changes and results over a long time in a larger system is often easier than predicting changes and results over a very short time in a very small part of that system.
Comments
True enough. But to say "we wish to stabilize climate, or at least counteract excesses, just long enough for us to grow invulnerable to its whims", is a less pretentious and less arrogant wish. I personally hold that one. I don't want climate stabilized forever. I only want it nudged towards stability... let's say... until people can use fusion for electricity generation.
Excesses of climate can easily cause poverty, which tends to make people irritable and easier to manipulate... and the latter generally manifests as conflict. Since the choice of weapons is a bit too impressive, and the choice of alternative living places non-existent, I am quite concerned about whether human kind can keep a relative peace until it grows at least slightly independent of Earth.
[quote]We are going to have to pay more carbon taxes to a politician/organization when there is no proof these taxes will make the earth "cooler", the only reality is a richer politican.[/quote]
That is a concern of mine too. To reduce that concern, I don't advocate legislative or regulatory action to reduce pollution and increase self-sufficiency. I limit myself to recommending that people do something about it directly. I'm sure that enough of folks will be calling for regulations anyway, so I stay out of that, lest it be overdone.
(And sure, it may still get overdone.)
From that viewpoint, if enough people do act on their own, without regulations or demands... perhaps the priority placement mentioned in the beginning of this thread... isn't as bad as it seems. Because if people want, this looks like something which *can* be extensively alleviated without leveraging political power.
Strange. It seems suspiciously like an order-of-magnitude error, perhaps from someone comparing one figure in tons, against another figure in thousands of tons.
When I looked at Wikipedia's list of human CO2 emissions by administrative unit ( [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_emissions[/url] ) the world total seems to be 27'245'758 thousand metric tons (== 27'245'758'000 tons).
Meanwhile the article on carbon dioxide suggests that its production from volcanic sources is a maximum of 255 million tons (== 255'000'000 tons) per year, and goes on to state that human production is about 130 times greater, which seems to be a large enough margin to weigh out in favour of humans, even if some natural proesses have accidentally been counted as human emissions.
The source menioned by Wikipedia is the US Geological Survey website (what their sources are, I didn't check).
[url]http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html[/url]
Volcanoes erupt and add carbon to the air. The air warms the snow melts.
Has happened twice as I recall reading it.
The whole Earth has had enough carbon in the air at one time to melt almost all the snow.
Is there any one here who thinks the air doesn't warm and cool on a global level?
I don't want to see any one writing that know one here thinks it doesn't.
A history graph of global temperature will show that.
The whole point is how much of a change are humans making.
If you think we can mine and drill out of the Earth and turn it into air and it will make no difference check out what the vast majority of scientist have to say.
Not what you want it to be.
Now, by itself that might not mean much. But, a few weeks ago I was watching a similar show on the History channel, this one specifically about global warming. This one was pretty biased, had all these fancy graphs and computer animations and everything showing some really doomsday scenarios. But one thing they showed 2 or 3 times during the course of the show, really stood out. They had a graph that showed the average, planetary temperature for something on the order of the last 650 million years, as indicated by fossil records and the like. And while they focused on where we stood "now" in this graph and our current climate trend, it showed, as a whole, a climate pattern that actually supported the comments made by the expert on the other show. That we're indeed still recovering from a cooler period and that this planet has historically been warmer. Not that we're warmer than we should be, but that we're getting back to where we should be.
Now, please don't drag me over the coals for the numbers and what not I have listed. I watched the one show months ago and both of them were at like 2am while suffering from case of insomnia. While my memory isn't quite clear on the numbers, I wasn't suffering from sleep deprivation enough start hallucinating about what was being said. But in all seriousness, this is the current "sensation" that the news agencies and TV and the like can spew out for ratings. Wasn't it asteroids a few years ago? And diseases before that? Hell, half the arguments that I hear in favor of a "global warming crisis" are hypothesis about what COULD happen if it's left unchecked, not historical facts or the like. Just watch, in 6 months or a year, they'll come up with some other crisis to scare up some ratings.
Don't misunderstand. I firmly believe that we should do everything in our power to preserve this planet. We're not leaving it any time soon and we really should be trying to ensure that it's still habitable for our great great great great grandchildren and they're not inheriting the ashes of a dead world.
---edit to fix spelling error
[url]http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx[/url]
That Nature doesn't [b][i]ALWAYS[/i][/b] use a gradual scale for change over time. She can be just as drastic as any human cause for change.
Asteroid impacts, Caldera (Super Volcano) eruptions (such as Toba), etc can be agents of immediate change (in a geological scale).
I remember a bit of research done a few years back that suggested that the last Ice Age ended in a mass melt in the span of about 20 years.
There is also the strong possibility that an increase in global overall temperatures can cause an Ice Age because of the precipitation that is increased and changes in Ocean current that will redirect the warm water currents etc.
Instead of Global Warming, the term Climate Change is way more accurate. In that it seems that the variables are more extreme in both directions rather than a general calm or low variation.
Who really knows?
:)
Is man contributing to the variables and the change, that is an easy yes. ;)
Don't take politics personally. The politicians don't.
As far as I can see any discussion based on facts ended half a dozen posts ago. I'm more than willing to trade hyperbole until that changes.
If you browse though popular science magazines, newspapers, and health magazines you will find a lot of articles which start with "A new study found.." and then proceeds to treat this new study as gospel truth. There is enough research in most fields where you can find a peer reviewed study to back up any claim. This was very evident when it came to the hormone supplement for menopausal women debatical a couple years go where one bit of research came out saying it was ok, and then another study was published shortly after that said it was bad.
One should not look at individual studies for gospel truth but look at the body of research as a whole. Last year when I looked at this the rate of change of greenhouse gasses and average global temperatures are mostly only seen from when giant flood basalt flows erupted -- the ones that have been responsible for most of the mass extinctions in Earth's history.
it's not so much 'fear mongering' as 'fear exposing'.
whilst Vert wont admit it, he's one of the guys with the shovel at one end of the whole, filling in what most others are busy trying to dig up...
climate change is a massively complex issue, if you try dealing with it as a series of discreet systems, you fail. it's also massively interconnected, only a 'generalisation' or more properly, a 'broad scope of discussion' is going to have any hope of encompassing the issues.
Is man dangerously influencing global climates? What scientific data supports this, and what scientific data would tend to support a different conclusion? These are all valid questions, ones that could prompt a long and interesting discussion. While I generally keep an eye on such discussions here, I'm generally not motivated to participate. Frankly, I've looked at factual sources and come to the conclusion that I couldn't care less.
What does dismay me is when people like you start to turn it into an "us vs them" sort of discussion. You have your opinion on the severity of climate change, and I have mine. Mine is based upon the facts I've seen, and I'm not going to insult you by saying that your opinion is less valid.
Escept, that's what you've done to me and people who believe as I do. You, earlier, said that this debate is between the "Union of Concerned Scientist" (intelligent people who care) and the "Union of How it is Wanted to be" (ignorant people, or worse, people with malicious intent against all mankind). Everyone who does not believe as you do is lumped into this ignorant category. I take issue with this, and I think anyone who wants a fruitful discussion should take issue as well, regardless of whether they think global warming spells the doom of our race or not.
What got everyone's feathers ruffled was that I responded with remarks that were just as baseless, and just as biased, just biased in a completely opposite direction. If you are allowed to paint yourself as an intelligent, level-headed intellectual and your opponents as short-sighted and ignorant, then why am I not allowed to do the same?
There's a way to have this discussion without it devolving into rhetoric. This is not it.[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171045]people often retreat into the details when they can't face a broader truth
it's not so much 'fear mongering' as 'fear exposing'.
whilst Vert wont admit it, he's one of the guys with the shovel at one end of the whole, filling in what most others are busy trying to dig up...[/quote]The same thing happens here. Not only am I apparently incapable of facing the "truth" (more accurately, shadow boxer's opinions and conclusions), but I am depicted as attempting to actively stymie the efforts of those who are presumably trying to save the planet. All this for merely having a difference of opinion with him!
I try to buy energy-efficient PSUs in the PCs I build. I rode my bike to work for most of the summer. I try my best to minimize my "carbon footprint" or whatever it's called these days without making my life less convenient. I do it because it makes sense in my mind for me to be energy efficient - if that has the side effect of saving the planet, I really don't care.
Yet from shadow boxer's description of me, you'd think I was driving my Hummer (EDIT: I do not own one, nor does anyone in my immediate family) two hundred miles every day just to prove I could, leaving all the lights on in my house just because I could, and running around building coal-burning factories everywhere. All I have done so far is disagree with him on the internet. With no other knowledge into my lifestyle or mindset, I am labeled as someone who is actively trying to harm the enviornment. All of this from someone who started a thread intended not to present evidence about climate change, or foster intelligent discussion about climate change, but instead to complain about the fact that the course of a foreign country's politics aren't lining up with his agenda. Again, how dare anyone disagree with him, be it some random person on the internet or the political leadership of a sovereign country?[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171045]climate change is a massively complex issue, [b]if you try dealing with it as a series of discreet systems, you fail[/b]. it's also massively interconnected, only a 'generalisation' or more properly, a 'broad scope of discussion' is going to have any hope of encompassing the issues.[/QUOTE]You see? If one does not approach the issue exactly as he does, they fail! How dare anyone think differently than you!
And people accuse Americans of being arrogant. I don't know what kind of person you are outside of this forum, but the posts I see in front of me reek of arrogance. Again, not because of what you say, but because of the closed-minded, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong attitude with which you say it.
He would have to do something a lot worse then this before I think little of him.
I haven't made an effort to put in links so I'm not supporting my arguments with easy access.
I've given the names to look up if being informed is a real objective though.
1) The UN got together the climatologist and they say humans make it worse.
Not everyone of them but around 90%
Be concerned if they all agree on anything.
Opinion? I don't give a Rats but about opinion. I wants facts. The people who do the science, 90%ish of them, say humans are making it worse.
If your not a scientist and in the field of climatology your opinion is based on what a shrinking minority think.
*) Defend your side then. I still think you see what you want to see. I say that with out going outside of the argument. That isn't calling anyone stupid it is calling people uninformed though.
---- don't -- look --for --- insults --!---
*) One of us is wrong here. I don't think it is me.
So there for,--->
Heres the 'I'm right and your wrong' attitude.
I think I'm right.
With better information I will think different things, so then, once again I will be right.
This includes religion, abortion, diet, B5 and everything.
Things I don't know enough about I don't discuss except to get more information. Gun control for one.
I will respond. I'm over the bad grammar makes me wrong thing. Even before I stopped laughing at it. ;)
if you keep punching needless holes in the ideas of those trying to do something about it, you are just as bad as the ignorant and apathetic
you give creedence and validation to those who want to sit on their arse and do nothing but make the problem worse
if you have no problem with being energy efficient and doing the supposed right thing, great. Just shut up with the devil's advocate bullshit. Find another worthy underdog to shore up and support.
(I should at this point, point out, Devil's advocacy and underdog support is something I do frequently. To the point where I catch myself enjoying the disruption as much as I enjoy the cause...)
I'm not steam rolling dissent, seeing as you're not really dissenting... all you are doing is piping up basically because you can. I'm sure you'd be the guy at the back of the Viking longboat listening to a rousing war speech from the Captain, who pipes up at the end with a few doubts and concerns...
...and then tossed over the side with some fresh knife wounds. :P
nobody loves a niggardly nitpicker
[url]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003603025_pollution06.html[/url]
if you keep punching needless holes in the ideas of those trying to do something about it, you are just as bad as the ignorant and apathetic
you give creedence and validation to those who want to sit on their arse and do nothing but make the problem worse[/quote]It's called free speech, and I have a right to it. I could go on a tirade about how you and other environmentalists seek to destroy our way of life, with no reason but some cherry-picked and misrepresented climte data. I could paint you as a clear and present danger to everyone who enjoys apple pie and baseball, one that we have to act now to stop before it's too late.
It would be just as valid as you saying that I'm aiding and abetting those who would destroy the planet merely by disagreeing with you.[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171104]if you have no problem with being energy efficient and doing the supposed right thing, great. Just shut up with the devil's advocate bullshit. Find another worthy underdog to shore up and support.[/quote]I'm not simply playing devil's advocate. I disagree with those who say that man-made interference in the climate has put us on the way to destruction.
So does this mean I'm one of those ignorant and apathetic people you mention?
I [b]choose[/b] to be energy-efficient because it makes sense to me, fiscally first and foremost. However, I would be against any government intervention that forces everyone to behave as conscientiously as I do, or worse, forces me and everyone else to abide by more stringent, undesirable standards, based on a threat that may not exist - or, if it does, one that we may not have the power to stop.[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171104]I'm not steam rolling dissent, seeing as you're not really dissenting...[/quote]Yes, you are, because yes, I am.[QUOTE=shadow boxer;171104]all you are doing is piping up basically because you can. I'm sure you'd be the guy at the back of the Viking longboat listening to a rousing war speech from the Captain, who pipes up at the end with a few doubts and concerns...
...and then tossed over the side with some fresh knife wounds. :P[/quote]I'd love to see a right-wing government take power in your country and draw roughly the same analogy for you when you offer your opinion. Perhaps then you would value the necessity of free speech? Or is speech only free when it agrees with what you think?
Not everyone of them but around 90%
Be concerned if they all agree on anything. [/quote] The UN has been irrelevant for pretty much the entire 21st century. Perhaps they think that this issue makes them so?[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]Opinion? I don't give a Rats but about opinion. I wants facts.[/quote]Facts are what these scientists are using to make their predictions and form their opinions. Facts are what you are using to form yours. Just because I call it opinion does not mean it is baseless. I have an opinion based on facts, and apparently so do you. However, your opinion is not facts simply because it is based upon facts. Nor is my opinion baseless simply because yours isn't.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]The people who do the science, 90%ish of them, say humans are making it worse. If your not a scientist and in the field of climatology your opinion is based on what a shrinking minority think. [/quote] Since when is science a popularity contest? People thought Einstein was a quack for the longest time. [QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]*) Defend your side then. I still think you see what you want to see. I say that with out going outside of the argument. That isn't calling anyone stupid it is calling people uninformed though.
---- don't -- look --for --- insults --!--- [/quote]You misunderstand me. I don't [b]want[/b] to defend my opinion on the internet. It's a tired argument that's been done over and over, and never with any resolution.
What I will defend until I can't anymore is my right to have my opinion. If you paint those who disagree with you in an unfairly unfavorable light, I will take issue. You'll do a lot better job of defending your point of view if you spend less time talking about how the opposition has their heads in the sand, and more time presenting an argument based on facts to sway people to your opinion.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]Heres the 'I'm right and your wrong' attitude. I think I'm right. With better information I will think different things, so then, once again I will be right. [/quote] This is good. I would be concerned if you disagreed with your own opinion.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]This includes religion, abortion, diet, B5 and everything. Things I don't know enough about I don't discuss except to get more information. Gun control for one.[/quote]How often do people who dislike B5 get the impression you think less of them for not liking it? I would bet it's not often.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171075]I will respond. I'm over the bad grammar makes me wrong thing. Even before I stopped laughing at it. ;)[/QUOTE]It was never about the grammar. You said (sarcastically) that people should ignore scientists because they don't know what they are talking about. I said (just as sarcastically) that people on the internet don't know what they're talking about. However, I guess you can see how I got the impression you were calling me a luddite if you got the impression I was insulting your grammar.
Australia just booted out their right-wing government after 11 years. :p (That government that held the opinion that a cautious approach to polluting the atmosphere wasn't worth the cost. The new government promptly sided with the current majority opinion. This is considered one of the reasons the Liberal Party lost, albiet a minor one.)
[QUOTE=Vertigo_1;171131]The UN has been irrelevant for pretty much the entire 21st century.[/QUOTE]
While the UN may be politically toothless and irrelevant, that doesn't immediately make a report compiled by a large group of scientists and published by them based on the work of all other scientists irrelevant or incorrect. The UN is a very large organisation. You can't dismiss something one department produces simply because of the political ineptitude of the core.
However, I really don't care what government is in power in his country. I merely was trying to illustrate a point about the importance of free speech.
I agree with being more energy efficient and protecting the environment, but I'm very skeptical of what we are being told to be the ultimate truth. There is always a hidden agenda and someone's going to line his pockets with someone else's money. The ever-present enlightened self-interest.
I'm all for being reasonable, the climate is changing, we can see that with our own eyes, we don't need "experts" to tell us. It's changing towards a more chaotic state, with more extreme temperature changes (the rate of change as Croxis mentioned several times already). More so-called "natural" disasters like flooding, drought, snow in usually snowless regions and storms are coming and it's likely just going to get worse.
Actually, predicting changes and results over a long time in a larger system is often easier than predicting changes and results over a very short time in a very small part of that system.