I would think that the phrase "at the very least" expands on your skepticism of the scientific consensus. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Of course it's up for debate, or was, within the scientific community. It's not a judgement that should be made by the public at large. As this thread (along with countless others in the past) has shown, a small number of skeptics can hold sway disproportionately over those whose political views are made more comfortable by such skepticism. This debate has occurred over the last several years, and it has effectively now ended with regards to the general question of whether human activities are causing global warming. The fact that the expertise of the leading global warming skeptic is mainly in broadcasting should tell you something. If we're not going to act on the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the actual experts in the field, why do we have scientists? Of course people do confuse correlation with causation at times. However, it would be beyond obtuse to suggest that such confusion is the basis of the argument for global warming's existence.
again. correlation vs. causation. A lot of data correlates things together but that does not mean there is any causal links.
well i'm no saint but i try to do my part. you, on the other hand, would be far more constructive if you would spend your hostlity/energy on considering solutions to global warming and other environmental issues rather than railing against the reason for global warming.
I agree with that statement, and have not use the word cause. You can't prove that high cholesterol levels causes heart attacks either. Great correlation though. (munch, munch, munch) Can I ask, when you look at the graph of CO2 abundance with global average temps, what goes through your mind? I'm not being snotty; I just want to know.
B-Bob This maybe a simplistic look, but i'm not a scientist. Why can't you just do an experiment looking at CO2 in some sort of vacum, and how it absorbs sunlight compared to other compounds that make up our atmosphere and what rate they absorb sunlight.
Hi pgabs, not simplistic at all. Most scientists think it is very relevant to look at CO2 and its properties of absorption and reflection for sunlight. I tried (probably badly) to mention this earlier. Those data are overwhelming and we truly do understand, with experiments, what CO2 does, in terms of warming versus cooling the atmosphere. So your idea for an experiment has been run countless times, with very clear and reproducible results. So, if you accept any of the basic chemistry, the argument cannot be about what CO2 does. The argument can only be about its relative role in climate, its influence versus other factors (like solar radiation variation). It definitely warms things up, but some will argue that it is a relatively minor player, in the entire complex system.
The infared absorptive capabilities of heteronuclear molecules are already well known. Anyone claiming CO2/methane/etc do not cause global warming is 100% wrong.
actually this make your heart disease analogy make perfect sense. we know fat makes the heart work harder, we don't how much that contributes to heart disease we know CO2 traps absorbs sunlight, we don't know how much that causes the earth to warm. Also, if I remember correctly, plants basically in simplistic terms absorb CO2 in the photosynthesis process? What does the scientific community say is the role of diminishing forests, etc in increasing CO2 amounts in the atmosphere
Yeah, that's getting beyond what I understand. But from what I know, yes, plants take carbon out of the atmosphere, in general, so they are helpful, and if you keep cutting back on the number of plants on the globe, that is not going to help manage CO2 levels very well.
I didn't say that looking for an alternative to coal or oil was anti-progress. I'm not sure where I said that. What I'm saying is that environmental groups (the really radical ones) who have a lot invested in the political aspects of Global Warming have a history of opposing advances in modern technologies that would reduce the impact of pollution but allow us to keep a lot of the same comforts we enjoy today.
There certainly some in the movement to combat global warming who might think that way but there are plenty that see capitalism and the markets as a way to combat global warming. Think it about it this way if Al Gore was against capitalism why is he making so much money off of combatting global warming?
Again, not sure where I said that. If you read what I wrote, I said that they are against efforts to clean up pollution from older technologies because it allows us to continue to use those technologies in the first place. They would rather humans go back to a time without those comforts rather than to have science create a way to clean up pollution created by those comforts. EDIT: I realize I haven't really given an example so here's a link to an abstract of a paper discussing this issue in the context of a CO2 "Scrubber" that could remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere each day. The last quote is, of course, the opinion of one of the fellows at the NCPA. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16822 ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE NEW CO2 SCRUBBER IDEA Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day, says the Heartland Institute. While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place. According to Columbia University physicist Klaus Lackner, who is leading the research team: * Producing a large number of CO2 scrubbers can keep to a minimum any rise in atmospheric CO2 without the economically painful elimination of inexpensive energy sources. * This technology would allow people to use fossil fuels, which they will be using anyway, without destroying the planet. Environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have consistently opposed similar technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, because they do not address what they see as the root of the problem, says the Heartland Institute. "This is just one more piece of evidence that environmentalists aren't concerned about solving a problem," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. "Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people's lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn't require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they're not happy about it, even if it solves the problem." --- Now I am well aware that this technology may not eventually work. However, isn't this something that should be encouraged and welcomed by groups such as Greenpeace? I understand the desire to eliminate pollution entirely but if this technology works how is this a bad thing at all?
I agree. It's not all in the movement who believe that. Just because pgabriel seems to think I'm an idiot doesn't mean I don't know what's going on. If you read the post, I was commenting on the fact that the argument invariably turns into an argument between global warming deniers who are reacting to the fringe element who claim to be pro-environment when they are really anti-progress and anti-capitalism. In turn, those who do not think this way on the left develop arguments against the fringe who don't believe global warming exists at all. The majority of Americans who fall somewhere in between these two extremes are often left to listen to the bickering of these two elements.
Extremely disturbing attitude. Environmentalists insist the 'public at large' bear the burden of the punitive costs of all their 'programs'. Whether or not some elitists don't think we 'should' be involved in this 'debate', we are, we should always insist that we be included, and our will, 'We the People', who are, in fact, the 'Country' (not the government - the government is an entity whose sole function is to SERVE the wishes of 'We the People'), and UNTIL 'We the People' decide to involve ourselves in such disastrous economic measures, it should not ever be done. UNTIL 'We the People' are convinced, and not merely a bunch of self-interested vested-interest people who refuse to even consider allowing a debate about the issue. Not only should the 'people at large' be involved in this debate, it is us who must be convinced. Otherwise, no deal. 'We the People' may not be 'scientists', but we know darn well when someone is just trying to reach into our pockets.
B-bob has already stolen my thunder on this but to weigh in there is very solid evidence that carbon dioxide does lead to warming. The question is given the complexity of the Earth's atmosphere how much warming but it is a fact that more CO2 the more warming. Except there is lots of data out there supporting the idea that Global Warming is happening and is man made. You keep on arguing that you have data yet seem to be selectively ignoring the tons of data making the counter argument. I will admit that there is a lot of uncertainty about this yet given the odds why risk it. B-bob has already addressed this and provided evidence. I don't know your posting history but I have consistantly said that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding global warming but given the possibility (not certainty) of disaster we should address it. And that's fine but why do you begrudge Al Gore making a buck if in the end you agree with the tactics he is advocating even if you don't agree with his primary cause? I think Al Gore is being alarmist and I also think he was mistaken to try to tie in Katrina to Global Warming. That said I don't begrudge him making money if in the end it results in getting people to switch to renewable non-emitting power sources.
I see your point and I can see how that can be a problem and confusing. That's why I think its always important to emphasize that combatting man-made global warming has a lot of other benefits than just cutting down greenhouse gases and that the technology exist to do that. I don't believe this is a choice between living in pre-industrial times or having our planet cooked.
Here's the Bull**** Global Warming show. NSFW of course! <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JAu68OsFggw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JAu68OsFggw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5weG9IllCpo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5weG9IllCpo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ictpPrle3EQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ictpPrle3EQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
In the post I was responding to, the word "debate" referred to the dispute over the basic question of whether man's activities are causing global warming, a dispute that now appears to exist largely outside of the scientific community. I wasn't talking about the debate over what policies should be enacted. Perhaps that will alleviate your offense at what I posted? Of course it is not up to scientists to tell the American people what sacrifices to make in order to combat global warming. On the other hand, it is just as certainly not up to laymen like you or I to make the scientific conclusions on which those policy decisions must be based.
