To The Global Warming Crowd

[MdKnightR]

Please relax!

 

[Samuel Dravis]

 

Hey guys! My sweet looking chart proves that the current temperature is 588 degrees!

 

 

 

While I don't disagree that temperature fluctuations like the present one have occurred in the past, a little more info on your chart's sources might be in order...

[Ray Jones]

While I support MdKnightR, I say (again) a little care about how we treat our environment and deal with our resources and such cannot be wrong or useless, regardless whether we're actually causing a global warming, cooling, or nothing.

[Darth InSidious]

Interesting that even this chart has to admit that the fluctuations are much more rapid at the moment.

 

Let me try and put this simply: pumping vast amounts of Carbon dioxide, monoxide, NOx and misc sulphur compounds into the atmosphere is not good for the environment.

 

Why is this questionably scientific?

 

EDIT: Having read Ray's post, I agree wholeheartedly with it.

[mimartin]

Let me try and put this simply: pumping vast amounts of Carbon dioxide, monoxide, NOx and misc sulphur compounds into the atmosphere is not good for the environment.

I agree with Darth InSidious and even if it does not matter to the environment, it cannot be good for us to breathe the crap we are pumping into the atmosphere.

While I support MdKnightR, I say (again) a little care about how we treat our environment and deal with our resources and such cannot be wrong or useless, regardless whether we're actually causing a global warming, cooling, or nothing.

I too agree with Ray Jones. We are shown evidence from both sides saying that there is global warming or there is not global warming. While I do believe in global warming, I think both sides go to the extreme. A little common sense could make all the differences. There is no need to wreck the world economy, but at the same time a few preventive measures could make all of us healthier and safer.

[Corinthian]

Meh. The toxins are good for us. Toughens our lungs.

[Prime]

This chart is awesome beyond words.

 

Here are some of the things I like best:

• This graph plots "data" going back to 2500 BC, yet they only show three actual temperatures. One now, one 1998, and one in 1607 that has a question mark next to it. What are the values for all the other points?
  
• Where did this data come from? What methods were used? Can they care to give any references? Just one? What scientific peer review forum was this examined in?
  
• How on earth are they plotting this curve with data points (with no values mind you) that are in some cases half a millennia apart.
  
• They use lots of quantitative terms like "a few eruptions" and "very cold".
  
• The graph tries to show the timing of eruptions to temperature change. Then in the conclusion box there is a comment about solar irradiation that is completely unrelated to anything on the chart.
  
• But my biggest question is why the hell are there Christian references on a supposedly scientific chart???
  

 

This graph is, to put it mildly, ass.

 

And who are these guys? All I could find was that Cliff Harris is an insurance law graduate and devout Christian (thus the Bible references on the chart) who believes the Bible provides lots of clues for predicting the weather. And Randy Mann started on an internship at the KCRA-TV weather department in Sacramento at the age of 15. Since then, he's provided on-air weather forecasts. He is educated as a geographer. Their joint business helps others profit during times of extreme weather.

 

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=176325

 

Also some interesting quotes:

 

"I do believe in a period of extreme global warming. That will be in the tribulation period. That's when the real global warming will come in," Harris said. "Those of us who are believers, we're looking forward to it."

 

"I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself," Harris said.

 

For those interested in actual research...

 

IPCC: The Physical Science Basis

 

Wiki version with a summary

[Corinthian]

All the Christian events on that chart are documented to have occurred, no matter whether you're a Christian, Hindu, Atheist, or a freaking Pastafarian. However, I have to agree with your wondering where this data came from - the National Weather Service didn't exactly exist back in 2500 B.C.

[Prime]

Are you including the Exodus? And the birth year of Jesus?

[Fish.Stapler]

Are you including the Exodus? And the birth year of Jesus?

 

Can you think of better ones? They're easily recognizable historical landmarks in the sense that they are stories that a lot of people are familiar with. A lot of the things we take as history are based on shaky archaeological evidence, biblical or not...while it's resonably certain we're right in a lot of cases there's no way to be entirely sure. The first reliably recorded battle didn't even take place until 1457 B.C., so historical evidence for those times is shaky no matter where you look.

[Prime]

Can you think of better ones? They're easily recognizable historical landmarks in the sense that they are stories that a lot of people are familiar with.

But they aren't historical landmarks. In the case of the exodus, currently there is little historical evidence for it apart from the Bible. In the case of Jesus, the date they give is conjecture since the accounts of the event are at odds.

[Totenkopf]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/14/nasa-debunks-part-global-warming-myth-will-media-report-it

[Darth InSidious]

But they aren't historical landmarks. In the case of the exodus, currently there is little historical evidence for it apart from the Bible. In the case of Jesus, the date they give is conjecture since the accounts of the event are at odds.

There are minor disagreements among the four canonical gospels. Nevertheless, the birth of Christ is the basis of our year-counting system, so is as good a point as any to give as a point of reference. That said, putting it on when you've got numbers alongside is a little redundant.

 

As for the Exodus, not only is it difficult to prove at present, 1100 BC is woefully late. Given that one of the later dates for the Exodus from Egypt tends to be the reign of Baenre Merynetjeru Merenptah Hetephermaat, who died in around 1203 BC...Let's not even go into the First Intermediate Period/Old Kingdom dates some give.

 

In any case, a stela carved in his reign (known as the 'Israel stela') marks the first mention of a nation of Israel (and its destruction by Merenptah in a campaign in the Levant)...Presumably one of the periodic razing that the Promised Land went through.

 

Also, the New Kingdom would be coming to a close in Egypt, and her power would be waning. David's life is further given by those who bother to work out the dates of Biblical figures as 1037-967 BC, so to conclude...this guy is wackily, crazily off about the Exodus. (It's irrelevance to a chart about global warming aside. )

 

In any case this guy is clearly...a rather special case.

[SilentScope001]

Dude, it's just random events to let fellow people get a prespective for time. It doesn't mean that just because he believes in religion that the graph is totally wrong. That just seems ad homein. His graph may still be correct.

 

The fact that it may have lots of inaccuraies not be is unrelated to the events on the timetline.

[Eiganjo]

There are many factors to be considered for (no-)Global-warming. We have fires, like vulcanos or forest fires(which also occure naturaly from time to time), the current distance to the sun...and of course also us humans with all the carbon dioxide we produce with cars, breathing, etc.

I don't want to say the Earth is not warming up right now, because it obviously is, but the point the chart is making, is that, like most things, the earth's temperature is not a constant, and that there will evbentually be a time of global cooling again.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

[Chart]

I love your Paint skills. OK, strike that, I right-clicked the image and it actually came from what appears to be some sort of pseudo-meteorology site. Who'd have known.

 

Please relax!

Why, exactly, am I to relax? It's one thing to use a non-sequitur reasoning in stating that climate change has happened before, and as such humans can't have any impact on it. That I understand, and a lot of people even buy into it. It almost sounds logical on the surface, as if the first person convicted of hacking into a bank account and stealing a million dollars from it saying that 'oh, c'mon, we've had untold sums of money stolen from banks before, and never, in the history of banks, has it been the fault of anyone sitting behind a computer. Yet now all of a sudden it's my fault?' Really, it is cute reasoning, and you have to admire people who are bold enough to actually use it.

 

However, I honestly do not understand it when people say, with a totally straight face, that since global warming is part of a natural cycle, it's not as dangerous as the fearmongers will have us believe. I totally do not understand the logic behind the statement 'Please Relax' next to a chart stating that climate change has happened before. It's as nonsensical as a relief worker telling a civilian in Rwanda that he needn't worry because after all, wars are a natural part of humanity, which has survived thousands of them already (this complete with hand-drawn chart from nonsensical source, showing the armed conflicts from 2500 BCE up to now). Would she be comforted?

 

Landslides are but one example. Global warming causes an increase in precipitation. An increase in precipitation causes an increase in the number of landslides. We guys in the Norwegian Red Cross are currently working on a project to help internally displaced in Colombia, many of which have built makeshift towns in hills around the cities. These hills are dangerous enough as they are, but with increasing precipitation, landslides are becoming far more common, and you can imagine the death toll this causes. I'm glad I can now tell them not to worry, because it's happenend before. Likewise with my municipality here at home - never mind they are spending hundreds of millions of crowns securing roads against landslides, and repairing the damage they cause, now that they're becoming more frequent, as predicted by scientists. Forget that they have taken lives. Doesn't matter - it's happened before.

 

There are many factors to be considered for (no-)Global-warming.

True. You're wrong to say humans have no part, but many forget that we are equally wrong in saying humans are the sole cause of global warming. But you have to be careful with which factors you blame.

 

We have fires, like vulcanos or forest fires(which also occure naturaly from time to time), the current distance to the sun...and of course also us humans with all the carbon dioxide we produce with cars, breathing, etc.

I don't want to say the Earth is not warming up right now, because it obviously is, but

the point the chart is making, is that, like most things, the earth's temperature is not a constant, and that there will evbentually be a time of global cooling again.

And as I said above, that should not comfort anyone the slightest. Rapid global cooling would be just as damaging as it, too, brings with it all sorts of unwanted consequences. The problem isn't just that the Earth is warming - it's that it's doing it very quickly. At least I live in a first world country that can afford to cut some funding to other fields to keep us safe. It's worse for the Colombians, North Koreans, and Indians.

 

Whenever solar irradiation has decreased and volcanic eruptions have increased, global temperature suddenly plummet, often within weeks or months.

I'm waiting for a chart that actually proves this. A chart with some generic volcano eruption icons and no hints of effort at showing solar activity... is not enough.

 

This chart is awesome beyond words.

Agreed:).

 

Why the hell are there Christian references on a supposedly scientific chart???

Many global warming sceptics and deniers are right-wing. Many right-wingers are active Christians. It's called catering to the audience;).

 

Come to think of it, I'd actually almost like a chart that shows a clear Co2-global warming correlation, complete with such references as 'Darwin's theory of evolution published', 'Pope admits evolution is true', and 'Galileo proves world is round'. Would make the whole chart appear less serious and credible, but would be so sweet:p .

 

Edit

 

Oh, and:

"I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself," Harris said.

The Bible tells humans to be stewards of the Earth. He can't even get his own mythology straight.

[Corinthian]

The Bible tells humans to be stewards of the Earth. He can't even get his own mythology straight.

 

They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Tommycat]

Humans play a part in global warming, though the extent of our part is still very largely conjecture. Many people who's research has been used to show global warming actually have come out against "human caused" global climate change. The effects of our cars belching out CO emissions don't equate to ONE volcanic eruption. Is global climate change a big deal? Absolutely, Global climate change(I hate the term "global warming" as it is too easy to prove that it isn't actually getting warmer) does occur. Whether human caused or not, preparations for it are essential. Just as polar reversals are an important aspect of the earth's life cycle, so too are the changes in our climate. We should be aware of them, but not waste our efforts in areas that have little to no effect on the global climate. An example of this is the "Save the rainforest" movements. While old growth trees do produce more oxygen than new trees, they do not however produce more oxygen than the same area of grass. To be fair, the same area of grass however does not do as much to prevent erosion as the trees.

 

It is fair to say that we should not pollute our environment. I love to head out to a lake and fish. I'll eat what I catch... Many of the so called right wingers like to be out in the woods hunting/fishing/camping etc. Be careful about painting with that wide brush. A lot of the right wingers are the ones out there cleaning up the trash left by left wingers.

 

There are several references on the chart that have NOTHING to do with the bible. Basically it was an easy as hominem for you... They could have used something along the lines of Julius Cesar becomes emperor of Rome. Fewer people have an idea of when that is... well maybe fewer in the US.

 

And no, I'm not a right wing religious nut(in fact I'm an Agnostic formerly athiest, but leaning more towards Budhism.... guess I'm just confused).

[Darth InSidious]

Oh, and:The Bible tells humans to be stewards of the Earth. He can't even get his own mythology straight.

He certainly hasn't got his ancient history straight.

 

I often wonder how many bible-bashers actually read the thing...

[Ctrl Alt Del]

However, I honestly do not understand it when people say, with a totally straight face, that since global warming is part of a natural cycle, it's not as dangerous as the fearmongers will have us believe. I totally do not understand the logic behind the statement 'Please Relax' next to a chart stating that climate change has happened before. It's as nonsensical as a relief worker telling a civilian in Rwanda that he needn't worry because after all, wars are a natural part of humanity, which has survived thousands of them already (this complete with hand-drawn chart from nonsensical source, showing the armed conflicts from 2500 BCE up to now). Would she be comforted?.

 

Agreed. So we should relax because the global warming is anatural process that'll keep happening independently of our actions? Call me an optimistic, but I won't.

[Eiganjo]

The effects of our cars belching out CO emissions don't equate to ONE volcanic eruption.

That is true, humans don't even compare nature's natural CO2 emission. That doesn't mean though, that we should go on like we did. Even though I am kind of a global warming sceptic, I am happy to see , that a lot of progress was made in alternate energy/fuels, energy saving buildings, recycling, filtering of poluted ground-water, etc... over the last few years. Even if we are not the biggest impact on global climate change, I don't see any reason why it would be positiv to keep poluting the planet.

 

There are many factors to be considered for (no-)Global-warming.

True. You're wrong to say humans have no part, but ...

I didn't say humans have no part. I'll quote myself real quick:

...and of course also us humans with all the carbon dioxide we produce with cars, breathing, etc.

[Prime]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/14/nasa-debunks-part-global-warming-myth-will-media-report-it

You are quoting a site whose tagline is "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" as a reliable source?

 

Dude, it's just random events to let fellow people get a prespective for time.

They why not use actual events and can be marked accurately?

 

It doesn't mean that just because he believes in religion that the graph is totally wrong.

No, the lack of actual verifiable data makes it "wrong."

[Totenkopf]

C'mon, Prime. That doesn't negate what they have to say. Afterall, you've heard of the saying "even a paranoid has enemies". Just b/c they identify themselves as combating what they see as unchallenged information from the "mainstream" doesn't mean they lack credibility. At least they are more honest than the mainstream media which is demonstrably liberal/left wing but loathe to admit to it. Even the BBC's own internal investigator's pronounced their news reportage as left leaning (thus hardly unbiased).

[Tommycat]

Actually Totenkopf, he kinda has a point. I mean would you trust Michael Moore to give credible evidence? Or more directly related would you trust Al Gore's site to provide unbiassed information on this subject?

 

The problem with many of the credible sources though is this: How do you get more funding for researching human caused global climate change after you prove that humans have little to no effect on it?

[Totenkopf]

The problem, though, is determining who is truly credible. Everyone has some degree of bias, even if we aren't aware of it. Some bias is very transparent (Michael Moore) and others seemingly less so (pick your favorite news outlet: Fox/BBC/etc..). I think that Reagan had a saying: trust, but verify. It's not really enough to say "oh, he's fighting liberal/conservative bias in the media, must just be bs". Ultimately, though, who we choose to see as credible will probably expose some of our own biases.