I think the Earth is warming and that man has contributed to it in some aspect. However, I also believe that some of the modern environmental movement, in particular the global warming movement, is a not so cleverly disguised anti-capitalism and anti-progress movement. This is who a lot of the global warming deniers are responding to which changes the course of discussion.
seems some people tend to relate that not buying into the idea that man has been the cause for the changes in the climate (i.e. al gore's message) somehow means that you are saying that it's ok to not try to be 'greener'. SHould people try to create less greenhouse gas? yes. should people try to polllute? yes. Should the idea to pollute less be represented in an overexaggerating, drastic (i.e. chicken little) and, at the very least, very thin conclusions and present them like they are absolute facts (like gore presented)? no. Gore turned a mole hill into a mountain and is trying to make some gains off that with this ridiculous carbon credit idea. Part of what he did was a very good thing...drive home the point that people do need to pollute less. The other part is shamefull...scaring people to do act in a way that will benefit him more so than the environment.
Funny, I haven't heard anything about this huge shift in the scientific community. However, I have heard precisely the claims you're making for years now. I have a feeling you're just going to see what you want to see.
I wouldn't say the IPCC came to "thin conclusions". It's really remarkable how strong their case is considering all the pressure there was to water down their report. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
i said, "at the very least, thin conclusions". Again, i'm not goign to pretend to read a bunch of links and think i know what's right or wrong. All i was pointing out is that it is obviously up for debate. I also think that many tend to confuse correlation with causation.
See, this ignores the probability argument. When you say "mole hill," you are automatically saying you know for a fact that we don't have an impending crisis. Your statement claims to know the issue is a mole hill, but you can't know that. There is a substantial chance that we do have an impending crisis, and that our behavior can mitigate or worsen the crisis. You have in front of you a curtain, separating you from the future. Al Gore says there is definitely a mountain of a problem behind the curtain. A lot of scientists agree. We don't know with 100% certainty. But we know our actions are increasing the chance of a mountain, and we know our present carbon habits are increasing the size of any mole hill, dung heap, volcano, or mountain that lies behind that curtain. Please see my analogy. We are fat, getting fatter, and we know that being fat could lead to heart disease. A possible heart attack is not a "mole hill." This is the classic reason scientists and doctors and engineers often have an EPIC FAIL when trying to relate things to politicians and the general public. People are not comfortable with probabilities, and nerds are not very good at explaining it, being honest about it.
My only problem with that analogy is that we know for certain that obecity causes heart desease. We still don't know for sure that the amount of Cabon dioxide has any negitive effect on our climate. There is no data to support that theory. What we do know about CO2 is that our planet needs it to servive.How much is too much is the question and we don't have the answer for that and neither does Al Gore. What if someone said that making cheese might release bacteria that create CO2? They have no data to support their theory but we better act on it now because...."What if I'm right!" When I put it like that it sounds kind of ridiculous. What evidence? Does the UN IPCC continue to use Climatologist Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart that was so instrumental in creating the global warning scare? Why not? . The only reliable measurable data that I have seen in this discussion are the following: Temperature Solar Activity Carbon Emissions The largest warming climate change took place during the medieval warming period about 950 AD to 1350 AD when temperatures rose 1.5 degrees Celsius. During the 2000’s our temperature has increased about .5 degrees Celsius. The one thing that strikes me about those facts is that there were no fossil fuel burning cars during the Medieval Warming period. Another fact is that we increased our carbon dioxide emissions 330% between 1940 and 1972 arctic air temperature dropped almost a full degree Celsius during this period. We thought we were entering another ice age and the reason we thought this was happening was….increased levels of CO2. The fact is that we don’t know. The more we examine the facts the more the argument changes from, “we are destroying our climate”, to “we can’t take a chance on destroying our climate.” Even you have taken this stance in your last post. I am for alternate developing alternate fuels for many reasons. I am not for increasing CO2 in the atmosphere because, “We don’t know the end results.” I am not for scammers such as Al Gore trying to create a global frenzy with false data in order to line his pockets with more cash. Nothing sells like paranoia.
I think the argument you are using is less on probability and more on possibility. I believe the Measurable Data supports the theory that Solar Activity is the main variable in the earths climate. CO2 is a possible theory but Solar Activity is the probable theory.
I'll leave the rest of your post alone, but I could not disagree more with what you say related to the health analogy. We do NOT know for certain that obesity causes heart disease. We only have strong correlations. We also knows that being heavy makes the heart work harder. We do know and understand exactly what CO2 does in the atmosphere. Anyone telling you otherwise is being very dishonest with you, or they do not understand the basic physical chemistry that underlies the issue. You can measure the exact absorption properties of that molecule at the primary range of wavelengths from solar radiation. You can compare that with all sorts of other atmospheric molecules. CO2 does not reflect much, and it absorbs a lot of solar energy. Its net effect is to help store heat and warm the atmosphere. hi again, crash. That's fair enough. My reading of the data (not important), and the reading by the majority of atmospheric scientists (more important) disagree with you and your reading of the data as having solar causes be "probable." And that is fine. Genetics may very well be what leads to our global heart attack, if we have one. Some heart attacks happen to people who are slim and eat healthy food and have low cholesterol. You just never know.
Sorry you feel that way. But maybe it would help if you looked at Penn and Teller as messengers and not researchers. There is a very large and substantial number of scientists that have made the point that increased Solar Activity and not CO2 is the most probable veriable in the earths climate.
B-Bob Thanks again for your response and contribution to this thread. I keep pointing to measurable data and no one has touched on this one fact: There are many other examples that just do not measure up to CO2 being the major driver in climate change. I would also like to point out that some are ignoring the large number of scientists that disagree with the effects of CO2 on global warming. The popular theory that the world was flat turned out to be wrong as well.
Why or how do you interpret anything in any argument anywhere that suggests I want to pollute. What kind of response or post is that? Is that how you respond when I present the data and you have no other way to respond?
Hi crash, good point, kind of, about the mid-20th century data. But it's incorrect about the total CO2 abundance. See below. Anyway, here's the basic average: (stolen from some site called "First Science" I think this is the right data set in any case, give or take) So this is a global average, not focused on either pole or any one continent. And yeah, we have to decide (or argue to a standstill) what window is worth looking at. The data are noisy, as with most data. There are five-year regions with amazing climbs, five-year regions with amazing dips, and 30 year regions (as you cited) with overall decreases. Most objective data-fitting routines would give you one probable trend, however, for global average temp. and it correlates fairly nicely with CO2 abundance, if you look at the big picture. If you look at any myriad of small noisy windows of time, you find horrible correlation. Here's another graph for you. Everyone can make of this what they will. I got this from one of the skeptic sites, Newsbusters, from an article written by one Noel Sheppard (he may be a parody?). He claims the data fail to correlate because in 47% of single year samples, the two quantities do not move in the same direction. Um, okay. Glad he isn't in my freshman physics class. That's not exactly how to measure long-term correlation in complex systems. (please note, there are differences with the first graph I posted above, in large part due to the averaging used. The top graph used 5-year smoothing for temperature, and this 2nd graph did not...) Hmmm... well, I didn't gain any weight on SATURDAY but my cholesterol still went up. And hey, I didn't have a heart attack either Friday OR Saturday, so... I really don't understand what my doctor is worried about. (munch, munch, munch)
Hi weslinder. You know, I went back to the data, and this almost falls into the argument I just gave above. It turns out that trop. temperature data only really fall from 2000-2006. If you look at it since 1980 (still a VERY small window!) it has actually gone up slightly. here is a graph from another deniers site: "friendsofscience.org" (LOL) So we're talking about the blue. And yeah, it does NOT look nicely correlated to CO2. BUT, you can't do that lame pink line and claim, scientifically, that the troposphere is really cooling off over time.
Yeah Gary, I'm against pollution as I hope you are. And no this does not change my stance on what I think is causing global warming. Do you actually have something constructive to add?
this is so beyond ridiculous i don't even know what to say. trying to find an alternative fuel to coal which has been in use for i don't know how long and oil which has been in use for over 100 years is anti progress LOL
