Global warming or not?

[GA Russell]

On the one hand, I am a believer in recycling and not polluting.

On the other hand, I don't trust Al Gore and his colleagues.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

On the one hand, I am a believer in recycling and not polluting.

On the other hand, I don't trust Al Gore and his colleagues.

if Al Gore was driving my passions regarding walking softly I wouldn't give a rats patootie

[opitzs]

I have read a lot about it, and I am sure there is global warming, it is in most parts manmade, but I am not sure how catastrophic it is, though I am sure it is a catastrophe in the long run, if nothing is done. I think that will be the most important work for scientists now, establish a realistic danger level.

That all said, I think if we don't act fast 2100 will be quite bad. I just don't know about 2050.

Ciao
Sven

P.S.: Fast acting is important, as changes to the climate are slow processes, that take a lot of time.

[Vector]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Belief in the absence of verifiable evidence is religion, not science.

Hitherto, I thought I was sympathetic to science and hostile to religion. Thanks to Nate for rousing me from my dogmatic slumbers and curing my self-deception.

Pious man that I am, I believe that global warming is real, it’s caused by man, and the resulting catastrophe is well under way. I have other, equally bizarre, religious convictions. For example:

I believe the Holocaust really happened.

I believe smoking cigarettes is bad for you.

I believe astronauts landed on the moon.

I believe the earth is round.

I believe the world is more than 6000 years old, evolution happened, fossils are real and not the malicious products of a Liar-God, and what astronomers have to say about red shift and the age of various observed objects in the universe makes sense.

Doubtless in this vast web of ours there is a half-vast web site devoted to debunking each of these dogmas. I hope Nate will be so kind as to provide the links.

I used to think the real scientists were the people who worked hard for years getting training and earning degrees, made scientific research their life’s work, and published their results in peer-reviewed journals. What an ass I was! The real scientists are people like Rush Limbaugh.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I can't believe this is even being debated.

Have you examined the icecaps lately? Or visited a few islands in the Pacific where the natives have been living in water over their ankles for the past few years?

Of course it's happening. And of course we are responsible for the lion's share of it, through overpopulation, conspicuous consumption, and avoidance of cleaning up our waste products. The evidence is right there to see.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

No, I don't "believe" the science. Belief in the absence of verifiable evidence is religion, not science.

Your argument hinges on the temperature having increased. But as I showed in my previous post, the temperature data cannot be trusted. Since you cannot show that the temperature has increased, your arguments about anthropocentric global warming have no merit.

temperature is only one part of the whole atmospheric engine. if you are basing your argument on the existence of dodgy USA data, then realise also that a significant area of the globe does not have any surface temperature readings taken. many current temperature readings are taken by satellite soundings, and help provide an average. despite appearances on a global scale the USA is a 'small' (though significant) part.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I can't believe this is even being debated.

Have you examined the icecaps lately? Or visited a few islands in the Pacific where the natives have been living in water over their ankles for the past few years?

Of course it's happening. And of course we are responsible for the lion's share of it, through overpopulation, conspicuous consumption, and avoidance of cleaning up our waste products. The evidence is right there to see.

assuredly the evidence is there.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Of course it's happening. And of course The evidence is right there to see.

I agree it is happening, I remember lots more snow when I was young.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

we are responsible for the lion's share of it, through overpopulation, conspicuous consumption, and avoidance of cleaning up our waste products.

I don't think it is our fault though. CO2 is still rising, but the overall average temp. has dropped the past few years not risen. There are other clues also, the scientists keep prattling on about CO2, but there are numerous icecore samples which clearly indicate that in the past, the planet had a temparature rised BEFORE the CO2 level went up, indicating that CO2 is in all possibility as result of the warming, not a cause. This particular info however is not bandied around so much for some reason.
Possibly something to do with tax....
However, I do think recycling is still a good thing, so maybe this is why certain info is being covered up, creating a good habit is not a bad thing to do .As far as renewable energy goes however, I'm not really convinced that saving the world in one way, justifies ruining it in another (miles upon miles of Windmills, damage the hills and surrounding wildlife, and look damn ugly.)
I think the best way to solve the energy issue is either - use less (difficult), or go nuclear (controversial).

[Katti's Cat]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it can be looked at in tree rings, vegetation used, and many other resources left in the record

I know that - but it still doesn't cover the whole period to the beginning of time. Not that many trees around that are million of years out.

Using soil or other bore samples has actually shown that there have been extreme temperature movements and cycles.

Nevertheless - back to what I said previously: I won't hurt us to look after the world we live in. It's only on loan to us from future generations.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

I'm not really convinced that saving the world in one way, justifies ruining it in another (miles upon miles of Windmills, damage the hills and surrounding wildlife, and look damn ugly.)

Uglier than plumes of black smoke filling the skies, mountaintops sheared off to harvest coal, destroyed ecosystems and toxic sludge lakes beside the plants (when they're not breaking containment and flowing over neighborhoods)?

Give me windmills any day.

[Katti's Cat]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

... (miles upon miles of Windmills, damage the hills and surrounding wildlife, and look damn ugly.) ...

I'm with you on that one - check out the huge windmill farms they have. That's visual pollution and they are actually quite noisy too when you get closer.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

This is what I call ugly.



And this.



And this. Some of these are just a few-score miles from my home.

Tell you what: I'll take the windmills. You can have these.

[Avistew]

I think it's partly due to men and partly not. Either was, man-made or not, it could be really bad for us so we really need to find a way to do something about it or live with it. (Or probably a mix of both).

[Donnageddon]

Mountain top removal coal mining... ahh! What a better monument to the progress of man!

We sure are smart critters! Lets see a porpoise do THAT!

We're #1, we're#1!

[Greg Anos]

This here dumb reneck would like y'all to explain the following things

Why things were so warm around 1000ad? Nobody was creating extra greenhouse gases then.

Why did the Maunders Minimum correlate with the Little Ice Age?

We have had 4 Ice Ages in the last 2 million years, with big warm-ups in between. Could somebody explain why the wild cycles, and why the current period is different?

Gee, since the science is so definitive, I expect good, detailed, answers to all the question in just a few minutes.....

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Gee, since the science is so definitive, I expect good, detailed, answers to all the question in just a few minutes.....

So are the creationists. Even when the science is rock solid and voluminous, there will always be deniers that try to pick at any ignorant scrap and claim "See, waste your time answering this dubious claim with no citations I read on the internet!"

Meanwhile, reality, and the laws of chemistry and physics, rolls on to its inevitable conclusion.