Global warming man made? - Does it matter?

Global warming man made? - Does it matter?

by A Person Published on September 13th, 2008, 9:36 pm Rift: News

Ah, the unsupported opinion of someone who's knowledge of the Earth is stuck in the early 1700's.

That carries as much weight as your moon argument for a 6,500 year old earth.

I agree that if Yellowstone erupts, or a comet hits the Earth it will make anything man has done look trivial. So lets give up on the environment, drive that big gay gas guzzler

and release toxic waste, because the rapture can't happen until the Earth is a wasteland.

[BecauseHeLives]

Nothing is required for the rapture to happen. What book have you been reading APErson?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

The global warming problem is certainly one that I'd have to trust the experts on. I haven't studied climatology even on a layman's level... unless you call watching the Weather Channel to be a qualification.

But it makes sense that human activity -- particularly the stuff we've been doing since the start of the Industrial Revolution -- has made changes that nature left unaffected would not have had. So IF the warming is part of a natural warming trend, the net effect of human activity -- burning millions of tons of stuff that would never have burned without our actions, cutting billions of trees that would have lived far longer without our actions -- is to accelerate and exacerbate the warming.

Is it in our best interest to try to cut into the warming trend? That's one key question. I'd think it obvious that the answer would be "yes." We are well-adapted both physically and socially to the current climate. Not perfectly adapted, true. But we are pretty used to the situation as it has been for the past 10,000 years. Of course, the fact that we don't know WHAT the warming trend will end up doing to the planet's land has a lot to do with this answer.

How much can we change by our efforts? That's a bigger question. I leave that to the experts... I take as much advice as I can and hope for the best.

How much would it cost the species to get things back to "balance"? Oy vey -- I think that's the biggest question of the set.

[Liv]

Looks like it's time to start building em Hummers again...

Currently, 57% say there is solid evidence of rising global temperatures, while 33% say there is no solid evidence.

cite

Arrogance if there ever was an example of it.

Only 14% of Republicans say that global warming is a very serious problem

[BecauseHeLives]

Looks like it's time to start building em Hummers again...

Currently, 57% say there is solid evidence of rising global temperatures, while 33% say there is no solid evidence.

cite

Arrogance if there ever was an example of it.

Only 14% of Republicans say that global warming is a very serious problem

You didn't mention what percentage of those who "believe" that global warming is taking place think its because of non-human causes. The percentage of people who believe that global warming is taking place AND believe its cause is man-made is quite small.

[deepshade]

The debate is not over as Al Gore would have you believe. ( You do realize he is heavily involved in a company that will sell carbon credits right? ) There is some interesting data concerning the influence of sun spot activity and is worth a review.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

While I believe we need to be good stewards of this earth, the political bull associated with the "Global Warming" mantra is difficult to wade through. Wear your boots.

[A Person]

Believe it or not, Al Gore is not a scientist, so his views on the issue are not authoritative. It's the science underlying it that's important. Al Gore is a popularist and as such selectively ignores facts and overplays others.

It's no coincidence that the US, despite it's leadership in the world of science, lags the rest of the civilized world in the public acceptance of science. The concerted and well funded campaigns over the last 25 years to denigrate and undermine scientists in the name of religious fundamentalism has worked. Americans have been told for so long that science is a fairy tale and scientists are either frauds or completely incompetent, that far too many of them believe it if they hear something they wold rather not believe. It's also no coincidence that climate change deniers are the same group that deny evolution - i.e. the religious right.

Here are some hints (adapted from How Do You Spot A Bad Scientific Argument?.

Any argument based on the premise that professional scientists have overlooked an elementary flaw in their theory is almost certainly incorrect.
Any assertion that anti-science cannot get a fair hearing because the scientific community conspires to suppress their views can be dismissed out of hand.
Any argument based on the premise of major conceptual holes in climate change theory should be rejected.
Any assertion to the effect that scholars from fields other than climate science are better placed to see the flaws in climate science than are climate scientists themselves should be disregarded.

Of course solar input has a profound affect on our climate. If BHL thinks that he alone has spotted a fatal flaw in the science he is not only arrogant but deluded (and from someone who thinks the world is only a few thousand years old, any opinion on science is laughable). If you read any articles written by climate scientists you will see that the relative contribution of solar forcing compared with the enhanced greenhouse effect has been thoroughly measured, modelled and studied. Solar forcing has indubitably contributed to global warming. As has greenhouse gas forcing.

I would dearly love for the science to be wrong. I would dearly love for America to actually work together to address the issue with all countries of the world, especially China. I doubt either will happen. So I will plan my life assuming the the world will continue to emit more greenhouse gasses with a corresponding impact on climate. The world will go through periods of cooling as it has in the last decade (and throughout its existence), as solar forcing varies, but unless solar forcing becomes and stays negative, the world will warm.

The religious should start building arks. God breaks his promises.

[A Person]

There is some interesting data concerning the influence of sun spot activity and is worth a review.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Deepshade has learned of the sunspot cycle. Better tell the climate scientists.

The sunspot cycle has been known for centuries. The link with solar radiation and climate change for decades. That article is a general knowledge introduction to the cycles, not breaking scientific news.

Detailed observations of sunspots have been obtained by the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1874.

The inhabitants of Glennbeckistan have been crowing about how the Earth hasn't warmed in the last decade, therefore global warming is a hoax.

Look at this chart-



That certainly gives a hint why. Now take that cyclical chart and add a steadily increasing effect from greenhouse gasses and you get something like this



No climate scientist EVER has denied the effect of solar forcing. It is an important factor, but it's not the only one. There has been a lot of scientific debate (i.e. using data and reason, not uninformed speculation) over the relative importance of the various forcing, but if solar forcing is cyclical and greenhouse gasses steadily increase then the long term trend will be upwards with occasional reversals that never quite compensate.

Now if we could show that the sun were on a long term cooling trend then I would say throw another log on the fire and start up the Hummer.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

What I have a problem understanding is why the average person, who has little to nothing to gain from inaction on climate change, is so determined that climate change is a hoax? I mean, I understand the oil companies wanting to suppress the science that points a finger at them. The same way that the tobacco industry worked for decades to suppress the science that linked them to cancer.

And regarding the tobacco industry -- local tobacco workers were still arguing against a cancer link to my face less than a decade ago. But that was understandable -- their careers were in the balance.

But what does a textile worker or an office worker in an insurance company (for instance) have to lose if we accept the scientific consensus that the climate is changing because of human actions, and act on it? Will jobs be lost because we recycle more? Will people have to go hungry because governments build mass transit infrastructure? I just do not get it.

[Liv]

I just do not get it.

That's the first sign you're going mad... Welcome to the club. Your introductory package is over on the table, and you can take a seat next to Mozart, and Lewis Carroll.

[A Person]

Because it might require them to change their habits and also because the relentless barrage from the Glennbeckistanians about how much it will cost them


Open Video In New Window

Here Glenn beck hits all the buttons.

It's a fraud - the world cooled in the last decade
It's expensive
It's big government trying to kill America
It's politicians with financial interested in cap and trade (there are none with coal, oil and gas interests)
It's A CONSPIRACY

As someone who has worked his entire career in the coal mining, oil and gas sectors, I can assure you that this will have an impact on some very large and influential companies and they have well tries and tested methods of spreading their message through the likes of Beck.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Because it might require them to change their habits and also because the relentless barrage from the Glennbeckistanians about how much it will cost them.

As with so many instances in history -- the people in power are quite able to get the poor to do their work for them, using well-crafted misinformation. And because the masses generally have no ability to detect BS, they follow the line presented to them by their thought-providers of choice.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Interesting report from the AP: They presented some world temperature data to several statisticians and asked them to determine what the trends are. They all concluded that there is no cooling trend.

One quote (that sort of goes along with what AP said above) that stood out in the article:

If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect.

Most interesting.

[A Person]

If I look at the last few hours then my world is warming. If I look at the last few months, it's cooling, If I look at the last few years, it seems to have levelled off, if I look at the last few decades it's definitely warmed. If I look at the last few centuries it's also definitely warmed.

I wonder which is more relevant to establish a long term trend?

[A Person]

Here are a couple of charts that put the relative forcings into perspective

Source

[deepshade]

Oh, this was rich. It looks like there will be a greater number of Americans who will consider that Global Warming is hogwash. The IPCC hoax is being exposed bit by bit.... This is just the tip of the ( forgive the pun ) iceberg........ When you get down to the roots of it..... Ego, Money, Prestege... Scientists are human and are easily swayed if the circumstances arise.

http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/2592

[deepshade]

Another tid-bit.... http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/25/lorne-gunter-cooking-the-climate-change-books.aspx

The damage control is in full swing and reaching hysterical levels....

"oh what an evil web we weave when first we practice to deceive" ( Andy Griffith ) LOL

[deepshade]

Yes it is true. Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved. Now, we have a president who is heading to Cophenhagen in a few weeks to attend the Global Warming summit. What will be promised or given away even when the "science " is tainted? Everyone should really see beyond the trees to glimpse the forest...
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2009/11/obamas-science-czar-john-holdren.html

"Oh what an evil web we weave when first we practice to deceive" What a great line.....

Peace

[deepshade]

Here we go.... Climate Gate .... Thanks to our friends up north at the Canada Free Press...
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17216
and another one conerning the GREED aspect... Al Gore.. you're right he is not scientist just a greedy leftwingnut....http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17218

Whew.. too much fun... "Oh what an evil web we weave when first we practice to deceive" It just fits so well here.....

[A Person]

Oh yes, a couple of emails taken out of context from a decade ago and opinion pieces from a bunch of right wing sites really prove a worldwide conspiracy.

[deepshade]

Oh yes, a couple of emails taken out of context from a decade ago and opinion pieces from a bunch of right wing sites really prove a worldwide conspiracy.

But of course they were taken out of context, this was flying in the face of their agenda.... How else could they discuss the embarrassment? Couple of emails? Really? This is too funny....Damage control for THOUSANDS of emails and 2 thousand documents we have yet to hear about... ..... Rightwing? Leftwing? Who cares just tell us the truth. Here is some more fun reading....
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17217

[deepshade]

Let's not forget the media bias. There truely is a double standard...
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091124124528.aspx

There are a lot of people squirming right now. Getting it all out in the light of day is the best way to sort through it all.

[A Person]

Reality does have a well known liberal bias. Maybe you can explain in your own words what you feel is so damning in the emails that proves climate change is not happening?

[deepshade]

Reality does have a well known liberal bias. Maybe you can explain in your own words what you feel is so damning in the emails that proves climate change is not happening?

The intellectual dishonesty contained in the emails that I have read so far, exposes the attempts to squash any contrary evidence or debate in order to place their agenda in the forefront. I have not claimed that "climate change" is not happening. What is funny is that the term has changed from "global warming" to "climate change" and that in itself allows for any shift either way to be construed as a crisis to be dealt with imediately.

So to prove climate change is not happening is a faux argument to begin with. The climate changes all the time and has been for....billions and billions of years.....

[A Person]

The intellectual dishonesty contained in the emails that I have read so far

What is funny is that the term has changed from "global warming" to "climate change" and that in itself allows for any shift either way to be construed as a crisis to be dealt with imediately.

Speaking of "intellectual dishonesty"...

Climate change is the preferred term for "global climate warming due to an enhanced anthropogenic greenhouse effect" or 'inadvertent climate modification" because it encompasses all the climate changes that are occurring due to warming - it's not just the temperature, it's precipitation, deglaciation, sea ice melting, vegetation, sea levels etc.

Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

So to prove climate change is not happening is a faux argument to begin with. The climate changes all the time and has been for....billions and billions of years.....

The climate has indeed been changing ever since the Earth has had one. For much of the Earth's history the climate could not support oxygen breathing life and rapid climate changes are accompanied by mass extinctions. So - given that 'climate change' is a well understood short way of saying 'inadvertent climate modification' - since we now know with a high degree of confidence that human activity is contributing to an enhanced greenhouse effect that is forcing global warming and associated rapid climate change which may well result in adverse effects on humanity - perhaps it's a good idea to study this scientifically (you know with real scientists, not 'Canada free press pundits with no scientific education) and do something about it.

What is rather interesting in this 'conspiracy' is that there is no shortage of money for climate change skeptics while there is for government funded universities and public research facilities. So if scientists were money driven they would be busy fabricating evidence that the Earth wasn't warming to get more money from the carbon energy industries.

Unfortunately they would still have to explain the liberal bias reality seems to have

athabasca_glacier.jpg (23.24 KiB) Viewed 111 times