Global Warming

[Dagobahn Eagle]

In response to this post in the Dubya in 50 years-thread:

[...]As for global warming, I'm really not taking it seriously.

Big mistake.

 

So there's a hole in the ozone layer. So what?

 

One scientist I've read says that it's been expanding and contracting on its own for as long as anyone could observe it. Another might say it's growing and it's our fault. Who's to say which scientist is right?

I don't know if global warming and the holes in the ozone layer have much to do with one another, to be honest. Last time I checked, it was the massive amount of Co2 emissions.

 

In any case, what does it matter? So maybe it gets really cold. So maybe we have to dress a hell of a lot warmer to survive. So what?

Yeah, indeed, who cares?

 

Maybe the victims of extreme weather caused by global warming?

The hundreds of thousands killed by the Sri Lankan tsunami?

The people who lost their homes when New Orleans was flooded?

The 3000 people who died in the last heat wave in France?

 

Granted, not all of these catastrophes are necessarily caused by global warming. But it is a fact that global warming is contributing to an increased number of disasters worldwide.

 

Weather and temperatures are being turned upside-down.

 

Rapid global warming is real. That it's caused by humans is a fact proven beyond all doubt, and that it's a threat to humanity is a second fact. It needs to be dealt with.

 

The IPCC on Global Warming.

[SkinWalker]

Global warming is happening. But to say that a human cause (anthropogenic) is "proven beyond all doubt" simply isn't true.

 

There is evidence that climate change is exhibiting an overall warming trend. There is ample evidence that this trend will have serious problems for humanity as well as other animals and plants on the planet.

 

The evidence for anthropogenic causes may simply be coincidental. There is a good correlation between CO2 emissions and overall warming, but there is also evidence that a warming climate as we continue to come out of the last 'ice age' is normal.

 

The crowd that says global warming is the fault of man may be jumping the gun; but the crowd that denies it is occurring is simply not looking at the evidence. Reality lies somewhere in the middle, with man as a very likely contributor to a trend that should be expected anyway.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

(...) to say that a human cause (anthropogenic) is "proven beyond all doubt" simply isn't true.

Are you sure about that?

 

I base what I'm saying on this article, which you admittedly cannot read even with a translator, as it's for subscribers only. It says it's 100% certain that humans are behind global warming. I'll try to get my subscriber's ID number so I can get its sources.

 

I'm not saying it can't be wrong, I'm just explaining where I got my statement from.

 

Reality lies somewhere in the middle, with man as a very likely contributor to a trend that should be expected anyway.

But wouldn't it be better if it didn't happen as fast as it does now?

[SkinWalker]

I base my opinions on observation of available evidence. I'm open to revising my opinions if you have the evidence that supports the anthropogenic assertion "beyond all doubt," I'd like to see it. Unfortunately, I'll need it in English, Spanish or German. My Norwegian is weak. The fact is, however, that we've no idea if the anthropogenic contributions (assuming they actually exist) are significant enough that by changing our habits we can effect change in the climate change rate. It may be that human CO2 emissions are the equivalent of tossing a lit match in a bonfire. Does it really burn brighter?

[Windu Chi]

Global warming is happening. But to say that a human cause (anthropogenic) is "proven beyond all doubt" simply isn't true.

 

There is evidence that climate change is exhibiting an overall warming trend. There is ample evidence that this trend will have serious problems for humanity as well as other animals and plants on the planet.

 

The evidence for anthropogenic causes may simply be coincidental. There is a good correlation between CO2 emissions and overall warming, but there is also evidence that a warming climate as we continue to come out of the last 'ice age' is normal.

 

The crowd that says global warming is the fault of man may be jumping the gun; but the crowd that denies it is occurring is simply not looking at the evidence. Reality lies somewhere in the middle, with man as a very likely contributor to a trend that should be expected anyway.

It seem to me, SkinWalker that you are depending on the use of Occum's razor.

Your uncertainty is inferring that you are going for the most simple explanation concerning Global Warming.

You observe people reactions to the topic in the world, they seem to allow their fears and emotions controlling their reasonsing, that is what your reactions has inferred to me.

 

The physics of Global Warming is highly complex and difficult to calculate.

The use of the mathematics branch of partial differential equations, who calculations lead close to bordering on the nonlinear differential equations of Chaos Theory, for the accurate depiction of the physics of Earth's atomosphere.

 

Of course there will be some doubt and uncertainty brought into the argument.

 

But there is so much damning evidence, that people who have doubt or are uncertain, just will not be convince.

So, I am bordering close to giving up on that task.

[Davinq]

I don't know if global warming and the holes in the ozone layer have much to do with one another, to be honest. Last time I checked, it was the massive amount of Co2 emissions.

...Which made the massive holes in the ozone layer, due to the pressure caused by the greenhouse effect. You skipped a step.

[Windu Chi]

...Which made the massive holes in the ozone layer, due to the pressure caused by the greenhouse effect. You skipped a step.

Ozone depletion possibly is cause by chlorine and bromine that are present in Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC).

 

Ozone depletion link

[SkinWalker]

Windu6 is correct. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone depletion. Global warming and the so-called ozone hole are two different concepts with two different (ostensibly) causes.

[Mace MacLeod]

General Statement to Whoever Doesn't Think Global Warming Is A Problem:

 

If you, Bush, oil companies and whoever else are right about this, then nothing happens and we can all go on driving our SUVs and guzzling crude oil with our breakfast burritos. If you're wrong however, the human species might be royally up sh!t creek and facing extinction within a century or two.

 

Is this a chance you want to take?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Pascal's wager turned green:p.

I base my opinions on observation of available evidence. I'm open to revising my opinions if you have the evidence that supports the anthropogenic assertion "beyond all doubt," I'd like to see it.

Still lookin'.

[Writer]

General Statement to Whoever Doesn't Think Global Warming Is A Problem:

 

If you, Bush, oil companies and whoever else are right about this, then nothing happens and we can all go on driving our SUVs and guzzling crude oil with our breakfast burritos. If you're wrong however, the human species might be royally up sh!t creek and facing extinction within a century or two.

 

Is this a chance you want to take?

 

 

Excuse my ignorance. I know next to nothing about science or anything related to it, so my carelessness has an excuse. Besides, how much difference is it gonna make if I keep up in my ignorance... I'm just a simple college student. Nobody's gonna listen to me anyway.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Besides, how much difference is it gonna make if I keep up in my ignorance... I'm just a simple college student. Nobody's gonna listen to me anyway.

Read "Free the Children":cool:.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Has anyone seen "An inconvenient truth" yet? It's looking to be really good. Tough luck the neo-cons will ignore it:(.

[SkinWalker]

I saw it and found Gore's presentation compelling and accurate. I didn't see anything in the science he presented that could be construed as inaccurate.

 

I wrote a piece on my blog (which you visit frequently without posting ) about an email exchange I had with a right-wing columnist regarding that film: Pseudo-skepticism and Pseudo-Journalism about Global Warming

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Read it. Without posting:p.

[SkinWalker]

Still, it gladdens my heart to see that little Norwegian flag whenever I check my stats

[Totenkopf]

Climate chaos? Don't believe it

By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 05/11/2006

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

 

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

 

 

Biblical droughts, floods, plagues and extinctions?

 

 

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

 

Edit: Please click the link above for the entire article. The article is interesting in its counter-argument to the global warming consensus, but, unfortunately, posting in its entirety here constitutes a violation of Fair Use and Copyright. I encourage others to quote portions of the article in this thread for critique, however.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

It's a good idea to just link to an article instead of posting the whole thing.

 

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government".

And that's how 90% of the people who have no arguments debate: By poisoning the well or by means of ad hominem remarks. "He's got this and that bad reason to say what he says, so don't listen to him!".

 

Global warming is a very real fact, and a very real threat. It is getting warmer, the heat is causing more and more natural disasters, and it is foolish and dangerous to subscribe to Creationist-style pseudo-science to hide the facts.

[Totenkopf]

Perhaps a link may have been sufficient, but then I've tried to access links in threads that didn't work, so I provided both.

 

Don't know how much of the article you actually read, but it was a lot more than a few ad hominem zingers. Sounds to me like you just fell prey to making your own ad hominem attack. However, not really sure if that last comment is directed at me or just those kind of people in general, since I've not taken a stand proclaiming that God made the earth in 7 days and everything is just peachy keen, hunky dory. The problem with the whole global warming argument is that it's proponents are being dishonest about what is really going on in the world. The attempts at global treaties have been more about global redistribution of wealth than actually curbing any harmful emissions. If you're honest, you'd have to admit that the proponents of global warming have ad homenized the issue by vocally dismissing their critics as corporate hacks or flakes. Why, then, should anyone just accept that these people don't have hidden agendas of their own?

[edlib]

Well, for me personally, I'd much rather err on the side of caution.

 

Say the Climate Chaos folks are totally wrong,.. but we all act to try to reduce and remove potential sources of alleged "greenhouse emissions" starting today. Where will we be in 50 or 100 years? Well, I don't know; but the air will be a bit cleaner anyway...

 

If the Climate Change folks are even partially correct on the other hand, and we choose to attempt to do nothing about it, where exactly will we be in that same 50 to 100 year timeframe?

 

Well, I don't know about you, but I'll most likely be a lot further inland than I am at the moment,.. as the property I currently own is predicted to be at least 20 feet under water by then.

 

If Global Warming doesn't really exist, and we still go through steps to clean up the environment, have we done any real harm?

 

Seems to me that reducing pollution should be a worthy enough goal even without the threat of looming disaster.

 

If there are any detrimental socio-political side-effects to attempting to take that type of action as you seem to imply, well, then I guess we'll just have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis if and when they come along.

[Nancy Allen``]

You're a fool to not take climate change seriously. Is it caused by humans? I'm not sure, but it's worth chasing up just so we can act and do something about it, rather than find someone to lay the blame on.

[Totenkopf]

Well, Nance, for the record, I didn't say there was no climate change at any level. I merely contended that the global warming proponents are playing with the data for what may be political motivations.

 

Frankly, computer models are suspect b/c they are limited by the data and front loaded assumptions of the people constructing those models. With all our technology, we still can't accurately predict the weather a week from now. Why should anyone accept that we know what WILL happen in 10-20 years.

 

Also, I'm not saying we should do nothing to improve the environment, an ounce of prevention and all that. Merely that we should know more about what's really going on so that we can plan and act accordingly.

[Nancy Allen``]

I didn't say you weren't, but governments have disregarded the information they were given. Of course the government is ignorant, self serving and piss on you except if you were fire, but it's still very wrong.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

This series of interviews I found really interesting.

[Tyrion]

But wouldn't it be better if it didn't happen as fast as it does now?

 

You could argue that CO2 emissions are a result of our great demand for energy; the more energy we have, the greater our overall productivity. With the extra productivity we can focus more on technological research, which would facilitate the development of a solution(s) to the global warming issue. So while we would exaggerate global warming within the next hundred years, we would still ultimately benefit in the long run.