Global Warming: There is no debate.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Fact, there is no debate in Global Warmind.

Call it liberal propaganda.
Call it God's wrath.
Call it whatever you want.

Something IS happening to this world. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the climate is changing.

I know it has because it has been way to warm for it to be winter. It's been a constant no change of 55-60 Degrees for almost all of December in Arkansas. Hell, New York City reached record highs for this time of year and it is only getting worse. There is no more debate in Global Warming. It is real and the picture painted before me says doom. We have left future generations and even ourselves a bleak future with dead plants and animals.

California has been burning constantly. I have never known of a year where California isn't burning because of the heat. Last summer was so hot that I nearly passed out from being outside for so long. There is something wrong.

The artic and Greenland are melting so fast that its astounding. Snow is dissapearing from mountain tops.

So here we are a world that is bleak and becoming useless.

It's a myth, or, that's what the frivolous polluters and some government officials want you to think. It's a protection for the one thing that happens to be more important and the one thing that corrupts men and women.

Money.

Money is more important then anything and when you have money you will be willing to listen to anything even if it sounds like nonsense it will make sense to you. Those denying Global Warming match those who think the Haolocaust did not happen. They are insane.

[delen]

Everyone knows that global warming is real. People just like to pretend problems dont exist so they dont have to deal with them.

[Ceirnian]

Burning in which part of california? Because the weather here in the bay area has been chilly lately, and in the summer it's not that bad.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

And last year (2005-2006) in Santa Cruz there was snow on the beach. Mind you, this can be argued for a reason that global warming exists potentially, but yeah.

Edit: I do believe in global warming though, but you'll have to come up with more convincing claims.

[Duke Luke of Juke]

I used to believe in global warming, but then I thought about it, and I still don't know how we're absolutely positive, or ever could be, that the Earth isn't just going through a phase that occurs every 2000, 3 million, or whatever odd-number of years, which we obviously haven't been around long enough to observe, and therefore attribute to polution, global warming, etc., as opposed to understanding as a natural occurence on which we have little-to-no baring on. It wasn't that long ago, after all, that the popular opinion was that the Earth was the center of the universe, or that the world was flat--even among scientists, or the so-called intelligentsia.

[japanat]

There's no doubt that these are some of the warmest years ever recorded. The debate is over 3 issues: Does warming over the last 100 yrs have meaning? If so, what would be the future effects? Why is it happening?

While many scientists agree, not all do. And with something as complex as world-wide weather, humanity doesn't have the experience and knowledge to say, FOR SURE, pretty much anything.

So I'm sure some of the posters will agree with you 100%, and others will disagree vehemently. Take a look at the other threads about it from last year: http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5532 et al

[Jetsetlemming]

It wasn't that long ago either, Luke, that the claim was for Global Cooling, not warming. :P
17, really.... Just stop while you're behind. You're using localized weather as proof of global warming. While it's been an ridiculously warm winter in the North East, as well as other areas, it's not a record high, and just a little while ago I was watching a news report about 10 foot snow falls in other parts of the country. Even if you believe in Global Warming, the scientist's claim of the amount of temperature increase in no way accounts for a hot winter. The temperature has only gone up 1 or 2 degrees so far in the last few decades.
Temps change. A lot. They vary. A lot. While one part of the earth is scorching hot, another is frozen, and there's all the temperatures in between.
Oh, and FACT: There is plenty of debate on Global Warming. We've had three ourselves on it recently, and it's getting REALLY old. :bored:

[Mechs]

There is always debate. Why? Because everyone has their own opinion based on different facts that either support global warming or downplay it. There will always be debate.

Edit:It wasn't that long ago either, Luke, that the claim was for Global Cooling, not warming.
17, really.... Just stop while you're behind. You're using localized weather as proof of global warming. While it's been an ridiculously warm winter in the North East, as well as other areas, it's not a record high, and just a little while ago I was watching a news report about 10 foot snow falls in other parts of the country. Even if you believe in Global Warming, the scientist's claim of the amount of temperature increase in no way accounts for a hot winter. The temperature has only gone up 1 or 2 degrees so far in the last few decades.
Temps change. A lot. They vary. A lot. While one part of the earth is scorching hot, another is frozen, and there's all the temperatures in between.
Oh, and FACT: There is plenty of debate on Global Warming. We've had three ourselves on it recently, and it's getting REALLY old.


QFT

[Firefly]

Burning in which part of california? Because the weather here in the bay area has been chilly lately, and in the summer it's not that bad.



You have the bay right next to you, try coming up here to Sacramento and deal with the 100+ heat.

We had summer till November up here. The weather was in the 80s and 90s past Halloween, it was never that warm before.

[Ceirnian]

I'm actually going up to Sac next weekend, then I will expose your lies!

[NERD]

Using local weather as an evidence for Global Warming is an absurd idea. Especially if you only have the less than two decades to go by.

I do think a change in average temperature even by 1 degree is a good cause of concern. If we are not able to explain why that is happening, then it is only according to human behavior to try to come up with an explanation.

And I agree that scientists have been wrong in the past- from Geocentrism(though some scientists still believe in it) to creationism (been popular for most of history except for the last two centuries or so), alchemy (Isaac Newton spent more time on alchemy than anything else; alchemy did help the development of modern science) to the idea of unchanging, static universe (Einstein himself initially rejected the Big Bang theory, even though it took off from his equations of general relativity). However, people choose to believe their theories because they are the experts in the field, and more knowledgeable than the general public, and definitely more knowledgeable than your politician. Or the Internet is just a bunch of tubes. I wouldn't be so quick to discount on scientists though.

Face it, there is no debate here as in both sides on the issue of Global Warming won't come to a certain agreement or proposal in between. I could present the date that supports the idea of Global Warming, only to be accused of cherry picking my data (which is what all arguments are supposed to do), or downright be rejected that my opposition does not trust the validity of the data.

I would wish that certain measures would be taken care of though, from less dependency on fossil fuel to signing the Kyoto Treaty.

[Decade]

Fact, there is no debate in Global Warmind.

I agree, I challenge anyone to go out there and find evidence of a debate about warminds!

Sorry, it was waiting RIGHT there for me :D

[Cherub Rock]

The debate is whether it is due to humans. Nobody is denying that the Earth is getting warmer. That would just be stupid. There is evidence to support both sides of the debate though as to whether it's because of us or due to a natural warming cycle that we're going thru.

[MNJetter]

While it's been an ridiculously warm winter in the North East, as well as other areas, it's not a record high,
Not according to Reuters. Last week, they announced that if you take Earth as a whole, 2006 was officially the warmest year since weather recording began in 1880.

I think global warming is part of the problem. I certainly don't think it's the whole problem, though. Just a contributing factor. The debate for me really is how big of a factor it is, and whether it will do permanent damage or just speed along the natural process for a while before getting swallowed up by normal cycles. Personally, I'm more concerned about the hole in the ozone layer than global warming (related cause, but not the same problem).

[shimanotaka]

The debate is whether it is due to humans. Nobody is denying that the Earth is getting warmer. That would just be stupid. There is evidence to support both sides of the debate though as to whether it's because of us or due to a natural warming cycle that we're going thru.

Yeah... If we assume that it's really a threat and do something about it, and it turns out it was just a natural warming cycle, we can laugh at it later, in a green and clean world.

If we assume that it's a natural warming cycle, and it turns out that it's because we're tilting the environment into a death spiral, we won't be laughing. We'll be fighting for survival.

[Angelyne]

Fact, there is no debate in Global Warmind.

Call it liberal propaganda.
Call it God's wrath.
Call it whatever you want.

Something IS happening to this world. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the climate is changing.

I know it has because it has been way to warm for it to be winter. It's been a constant no change of 55-60 Degrees for almost all of December in Arkansas. Hell, New York City reached record highs for this time of year and it is only getting worse. There is no more debate in Global Warming. It is real and the picture painted before me says doom. We have left future generations and even ourselves a bleak future with dead plants and animals.

California has been burning constantly. I have never known of a year where California isn't burning because of the heat. Last summer was so hot that I nearly passed out from being outside for so long. There is something wrong.



These are direct effects of the 2006-2007 El Nino that we are currently experiencing. (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2699.htm)


Typical El Niņo effects are likely to develop over North America during the upcoming winter season. Those include warmer-than-average temperatures over western and central Canada, and over the western and northern United States. Wetter-than-average conditions are likely over portions of the U.S. Gulf Coast and Florida, while drier-than-average conditions can be expected in the Ohio Valley and the Pacific Northwest.

This paragraph was written in September, and it's pretty much described the winter in my region with dead-on accuracy. Nobody should be suprised.

Follks, this is nothing new. We already experienced this in the 1980s and 1990s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino#History_of_the_phenomenon) and nobody freaked the fuck out then. I'm sick of the media and armchair meteorologists blaming this on "global warming" when this strange weather is actually quite normal for an El Nino.

[shimanotaka]

These are direct effects of the 2006-2007 El Nino that we are currently experiencing. (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2699.htm)



This paragraph was written in September, and it's pretty much described the winter in my region with dead-on accuracy. Nobody should be suprised.

Follks, this is nothing new. We already experienced this in the 1980s and 1990s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino#History_of_the_phenomenon) and nobody freaked the fuck out then. I'm sick of the media and armchair meteorologists blaming this on "global warming" when this strange weather is actually quite normal for an El Nino.
Heh... I have a distant relative working as a scientist, studying El Niņo for NOAA. Quote below from the FAQ of "his" project's homepage.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/faq.html

There is a lot of confusion in the public about the interrelations connecting climate phenomena such as El Niņo, La Niņa and greenhouse effect. Is it true that a warmer atmosphere is likely to produce stronger or more frequent El Niņos?

We don't know the answer to this question. It is certainly a plausible hypothesis that global warming may affect El Niņo, since both phenomena involve large changes in the earth's heat balance. However, computer climate models, one of the primary research tools for studies of global warming, are hampered by inadequate representation of many key physical processes (such as the effects of clouds on climate and the role of the ocean). Also, no computer model yet can reliably simulate BOTH El Niņo AND greenhouse gas warming together. So, depending on which model you choose to believe, you can get different answers. For example, some scientists have speculated that a warmer atmosphere is likely to produce stronger or more frequent El Niņos, based on trends observed over the past 25 years. However, some computer models indicate El Niņos may actually be weaker in a warmer climate. This is a very complicated (but very important!) issue that will require further research to arrive at a convincing answer.

So El Niņo and global warming might be connected. Hence it might be correct to blame global warming for what El Niņo does.

[Jetsetlemming]

Not according to Reuters. Last week, they announced that if you take Earth as a whole, 2006 was officially the warmest year since weather recording began in 1880.

I was speaking locally: Pennsylvania, to be specific. This winter's weather is a few degrees lower than the record in my state, which was set in the early 90's. :P
Being the warmest year since 1880 doesn't impress me. :whoops: Considering the 1700's were, if I remember correctly, considered a "little ice age".

[Jetsetlemming]

Yeah... If we assume that it's really a threat and do something about it, and it turns out it was just a natural warming cycle, we can laugh at it later, in a green and clean world.

If we assume that it's a natural warming cycle, and it turns out that it's because we're tilting the environment into a death spiral, we won't be laughing. We'll be fighting for survival.
I <3 Comparing best case scenarios versus worst case scenarios!
In fact, I <3 it so much, I'm gonna reverse it, and compare worst case to best case.
If we assume that it's really a threat and do something about it, and it turns out it was just a natural warming cycle, global economies will be ruined, America and Europe will sink into a second Great Depression, causing civil unrest, and a strong and bitter blacklash against science will set the world into a second Dark Age.

If we assume that it's a natural warming cycle, and it turns out that it's because we're polluting (death spiral is such an ugly term), we'll have more tempurate and pleasant climates across the globe, the rainforest will recover and grow, farmable land will increase exponentially, Fresh water from melting ice caps and altered weather patterns create natural filters to the world's oceans, reducing pollution and mercury content, the beachfront housing market booms, and we make peaceful contact with the aliens of Mars who decided to stop living in secrecy and abducting our rednecks and cows in order to barter with us for or world warming technology, entering human civilization into a golden age.
:D

[4letterwords]

I miss snow. :(

[4letterwords]

I <3 Comparing best case scenarios versus worst case scenarios!
In fact, I <3 it so much, I'm gonna reverse it, and compare worst case to best case.
If we assume that it's really a threat and do something about it, and it turns out it was just a natural warming cycle, global economies will be ruined, America and Europe will sink into a second Great Depression, causing civil unrest, and a strong and bitter blacklash against science will set the world into a second Dark Age.

If we assume that it's a natural warming cycle, and it turns out that it's because we're polluting (death spiral is such an ugly term), we'll have more tempurate and pleasant climates across the globe, the rainforest will recover and grow, farmable land will increase exponentially, Fresh water from melting ice caps and altered weather patterns create natural filters to the world's oceans, reducing pollution and mercury content, the beachfront housing market booms, and we make peaceful contact with the aliens of Mars who decided to stop living in secrecy and abducting our rednecks and cows in order to barter with us for or world warming technology, entering human civilization into a golden age.
:D

I always liked you.

[Jetsetlemming]

Yer not so bad yourself. :)
I miss snow too. :( This winter was totally wasted. :gloomy:

[shimanotaka]

I <3 Comparing best case scenarios versus worst case scenarios!
In fact, I <3 it so much, I'm gonna reverse it, and compare worst case to best case.

*snip*

:D
Golly gee whillikers! If there was an environmental Nobel prize you'd soo totally get it! Maybe you should try the economics prize. I can nominate you! :D

It's amazing how the 169 countries that have ratified the Kyoto protocol have never realized that it'll cause global economic breakdown. We're all so stupid! I hate my country!

Edit: Wow! I totally see now how irony and sarcasm lifts a debate to a higher level.

[Angelyne]

So El Niņo and global warming might be connected. Hence it might be correct to blame global warming for what El Niņo does.

Even the quoted article said that further research was required in order "to arrive at a convincing answer". I'm just happy to finally see a scientist that honestly says, "we don't what the answer is".

[Beowulf]

The best argument that global warming is real is An Inconvient Truth. If you haven't seen the movie then you should. It makes several rather important points and uses raw data as its sources. Yes the earth goes through warm-cold cycles. The last few dozen years, however, have shown that the earths tempature is waaay over what it's supposed to be in this point in the cycle, and it's only going up.

The basic fact about global warming is that humans have thrown the earths cycle out of whack.

[Jetsetlemming]

Golly gee whillikers! If there was an environmental Nobel prize you'd soo totally get it! Maybe you should try the economics prize. I can nominate you! :D

It's amazing how the 169 countries that have ratified the Kyoto protocol have never realized that it'll cause global economic breakdown. We're all so stupid! I hate my country!

Edit: Wow! I totally see now how irony and sarcasm lifts a debate to a higher level.
You forgot the social unrest and the destruction of civilization. :D

[Beowulf]

The best argument that global warming is real is An Inconvient Truth. If you haven't seen the movie then you should. It makes several rather important points and uses raw data as its sources. Yes the earth goes through warm-cold cycles. The last few dozen years, however, have shown that the earths tempature is waaay over what it's supposed to be in this point in the cycle, and it's only going up.

The basic fact about global warming is that humans have thrown the earths cycle out of whack.

[Trump]

I thought the horrible hurricane season was supposed to show global warming. Wait, that's right, this year was a very normal or even less active than normal season. And just ask Denver how warm it is.

Arkansas: "Hey Denver, how's the weather there?"
Denver: "Oh, its .... " <Blizzard>
Arkansas: "What was that?"
Denver: "Sorry, I was saying thi... " <Blizzard>
Arkansas: "That wasn't Cingular dropping your call was it?"
Denver: "Maybe, but it might have be... " <Blizzard>
Arkansas: "Oh right, that Blizzard thing"
Denver: "Right, but maybe it'll warm up now, that global warming thing. How's your weather"
Arkansas: "Going we.." <Ice Storm>

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

The debate is whether it is due to humans. Nobody is denying that the Earth is getting warmer. That would just be stupid. There is evidence to support both sides of the debate though as to whether it's because of us or due to a natural warming cycle that we're going thru.

Thanks, that's what I meant.

[Cherub Rock]

Yeah... If we assume that it's really a threat and do something about it, and it turns out it was just a natural warming cycle, we can laugh at it later, in a green and clean world.

If we assume that it's a natural warming cycle, and it turns out that it's because we're tilting the environment into a death spiral, we won't be laughing. We'll be fighting for survival.

"Fighting for survival" is a bit much, don't you think? Humans survived the ice age, so I'm fairly certain they will survive global warming. If anything it will just drive human ingenuity. I really despise people who tout these doomsday scenerios like it is the only alternative.

[gentlemanandscholar]

Global warming is real, but not what I'm sure most people are trying to purport.
It hasn't caused the "warm" winters we've been having in the past 4 or 5 years.

Global warming has caused: "Scientists have already documented changes in temperature and precipitation patterns in the United States and around the world. Average U.S. temperatures increased by approximately 0.6°C (1°F) over the past century." (http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/observedimpacts/execsumm.cfm) While this is significant, it is nothing close to the way the media is portraying it.

"Omg no snowww! Global Warming is upon us! Next winter it will be 32C!".

But over time it will be an issue, and rather than ignore things like the generations before us have, we should address it now.

[Cherub Rock]

I can see how people are freaking out, but really you can't just make the statement "It's warm outside and it's January... GLOBAL WARMING!" Yes, it is January 15th and it is 70 degrees in North Carolina. Yes, that is utterly ridiculous. But to think that it is 70 degrees because of humans? Perhaps human made global warming has caused it to be a couple degrees warmer than it would have been had we never existed, but I firmly believe that this is a natural warm cycle. You guys on the East Coast will agree by the middle of this week when that nasty cold front gets here.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

Some of you may know my opinion on global warming, i'm not gonna restate my entire arguement about how valid it is, but i'll direct you to this link, and suggest to watch the video if you want to hear the facts from a guy that actually knows what he's talking about, also known as Chris Rapley - head of the British Antarctic Survey. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/6063798.stm)

One thing i will say though, to those that say "global warming doesn't exist it's a natural warm cycle in the earth" well what do you think a natural warm cycle is doing? the earth (or lets call it a globe) is increasing in temperature (or lets say is becoming warmer). Lets give that natural cycle a name - heatification of earth maybe? or perhaps global warming will do :P

Also, you should know that more heat = more wind = more of a shift in temperature due to air moving more, which is also partly responsible for the north pole decreasing in temperature, so not everywhere will immediately get warmer, some places can expect other variations in weather.

blah blah blah anyway, just watch the video, it's 24minutes long, but i'm sure you'll find it very informative! the link to the video is right underneath the first bolded paragraph on that link.

[Trump]

You mean it may actually drop into the 60s here again! Sweet!

PS. Florida has awesome winters!

[shimanotaka]

"Fighting for survival" is a bit much, don't you think? Humans survived the ice age, so I'm fairly certain they will survive global warming.

What you are forgetting is that during the ice age, there weren't 6 billion people that had to share the resources.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/evolution/

The six year long volcanic winter and 1000-year-long instant Ice Age that followed Mount Toba's eruption may have decimated Modern Man's entire population. Genetic evidence suggests that Human population size fell to about 10,000 adults between 50 and 100 thousand years ago.

Now... If 6 billion had to be decimated to 10,000 (or even 4 billion) I would certainly say that we would be fighting for survival. Do you really think that people losing their land and/or living will just lay down and die? No, they'll go to their neighbor and ask for some land and food, and if they don't get it, they will fight for it.

If anything it will just drive human ingenuity.
Er... The indications that there might be such a phenomena as global warming have already started to drive human ingenuity. At least among those who don't stick their head in the sand and continue to count their money.

I really despise people who tout these doomsday scenerios like it is the only alternative. Yeah... Like, why should we teach people that they can get AIDS from having unsafe sex and using dirty needles when they might not get infected at all, or might just get Hepatitis B or Chlamydia?

[Cherub Rock]

I swear if there is one thing that drives me batty it is people who take a short 4 sentence paragraph and break it down sentence by sentence to reply. It drives topics into completely irrelevant tangents, and in this case causes people to completely miss the point because they're too busy looking at each sentence as if they have to refute it.

[shimanotaka]

I swear if there is one thing that drives me batty it is people who take a short 4 sentence paragraph and break it down sentence by sentence to reply. It drives topics into completely irrelevant tangents, and in this case causes people to completely miss the point because they're too busy looking at each sentence as if they have to refute it.

Well, if you want to, we can continue discussing over PM, since you seem to have more issues with me personally than you have with the actual topic. Not only do you despise me, but I also drive you batty. I'm sorry that I made people miss your point. It wasn't my intention.

[Angelyne]

Yeah... Like, why should we teach people that they can get AIDS from having unsafe sex and using dirty needles when they might not get infected at all, or might just get Hepatitis B or Chlamydia?

Because we know exactly what transmits those diseases and exactly how we can prevent them. Currently, there is nothing that proves that humans are the cause of climate change. One thing is fact and the other is just speculation.

[shimanotaka]

Because we know exactly what transmits those diseases and exactly how we can prevent them.
I beg to differ. We started fighting AIDS long before we knew the exact cause and how to prevent it. Wouldn't it be kind of stupid to not try to treat a disease just because you don't know the cause of it?

[Vic_Rattlehead]

I'm off to a special lecture in Sheffield which has Sir Crispin Tickell talking about global warming. Such an honour!

[Ichisan]

We need to reduce the amount of CO2 being emitted if we are to avert global climate change arising from the greenhouse effect. Human beings have already successfully, through legislation and common consent across all countries, banned CFCs and removed the threat they posed to the upper atmosphere. However, it is far more complicated to reduce CO2 emissions and, as we all know, we have failed to reach agreement on common action.

1895 - Atmospheric Co2 levels are 290 parts per million.

1959 - CO2 levels reach 315 ppm.

1979 - CO2 levels reach 337 ppm.

1992 - CO2 levels reach 356 ppm.

2000 - CO2 levels reach 369 ppm.

2003 - CO2 levels reach 375 ppm.


Greenland ice core records going back 400,000 years show a clear correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Moreover, measures of the temperature and depth of Alaskan permafrost proves that the earth is heating up. Measures of air temperature are so variable they are unreliable but permafrost temperatures are an unambiguous indicator: they have risen between 3 and 6 degrees since the 80s.

Furthermore we can expect global temperatures to carry on rising - with what local effects we can only surmise and with what changes to global weather systems we are not equipped to predict accurately, but are likely to be catastrophic one way or another.

Given that changes in global temperature lag behind changes in CO2 level, even if we were able to halt rising levels of CO2 right now, the temperature would continue to rise. It takes time to heat up the entire globe, but adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes it inevitable in order to restore energy balance.

By the way, permafrost also releases greenhouse gases when it thaws: a positive feedback mechanism!

And of course we all know glaciers are shrinking along with the arctic ice cap. As the arctic ice area shrinks it reflects less energy so the earth absorbs still more energy from the sun: another positive feedback mechanism.

Meanwhile China and other developing countries are just going to keep producing more and more CO2 the more developed they get. Kyoto would have given China a pass - for now and for obvious reasons - which I suppose is one major reason why America didn't sign off on it, but we're all screwed if we keep going on the way we are.

[Cherub Rock]

Well, if you want to, we can continue discussing over PM, since you seem to have more issues with me personally than you have with the actual topic. Not only do you despise me, but I also drive you batty. I'm sorry that I made people miss your point. It wasn't my intention.

I have issue with people who use fallacies to aid their arguements in an attempt to scare people into believing their cause. When I said I despise people who tout doomsday scenerios I really meant that I despise that kind of arguement. It was not directed at you, nor do I despise you. To be honest I rarely pay attention to the name of the person I am replying to. I am much more concerned with what is written, and I don't think what you said earlier was a doomsday scenerio that I hate... just that it was on the road to being one.

I will give an example. Humans are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Because of it the Earth is heating rapidly and the polar caps are melting. The result will be sealevels rising around the world. The majority of the Earth's population lives along the coast or on a river that feeds into the ocean, and the resulting rising sea levels will be devestating to several billion people.

You see how it slowly and slowly gets worse? Sure, it all logically follows and it is plausible, but it has some huge faults which I don't need to point out. Yet there are people who would parade these things around as if they were facts. I don't doubt that global warming is real. I have doubts that it is entirely the fault of humans. I have no doubt that even if sea levels rose hundreds of feet that humans would be perfectly fine as long as it happened gradually and not in one fell swoop.

edit: As for the whole multiple quotes thing, that's always been a peeve of mine. The "Divide and Conquer" strategy of replying to posts allows the person to take a strong logical arguement and break it down into single sentences which by themselves are much less focused and much easier to refute. If it's a long post then I can understand breaking down paragraphs, but if people wanted their points to be replied to sentence by sentence then they would use semicolons a lot more frequently.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Nobody denies global warming. The real debate is over the cause of global warming. Many argue that global warming is caused largely in part by human activity, which is possible. Others argue that it's caused by the natural cycles of the sun which have caused warm and cold cycles on Earth in the past.

[King Kong]

B...but..Bush gives us the impression that global warming is nothing to worry about.

Seriously though, we can all do our part in reducing CO2 emissions. Try to use electricity and gas as efficiently as we can folks.
Not only that but our oil reserves are depleting exponentially, we are going to hell if we don't find an alternative fuel resource asap.

[Plekto]

This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for the naysayers, though:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/science/earth/16gree.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin
Click on the link that says "map of warming island" - it's positioned exactly the same as the ice-covered picture taken in 1986. That's an astounding climate change in 20 years.

But fear not - when all of the ice melts, the oceans will be dilluted and the currents will stop. Then we get an ice age again - Joy! The planet has a built-in thermostat - who would have guessed?

Oh - and it appears as if the magnetic poles are going to shift soon, so that's another bit of fun to look forward to - moving ozone holes for a century or so.

[Jetsetlemming]

Ozone holes aren't permanent, you know. Ozone is far from a finite resource. It occurs naturally constantly in the atmosphere, and the only way to really get rid of it is to blow up the sun.

[Trump]

But fear not - when all of the ice melts, the oceans will be dilluted and the currents will stop.

WTF? Where is your crack pipe?

Ocean currents are caused by a combination of the rotation of the earth, gravity of the moon, and ocean heating by the sun. How does more water stop ocean currents? If anything it makes them worse!

[Cherub Rock]

WTF? Where is your crack pipe?

Ocean currents are caused by a combination of the rotation of the earth, gravity of the moon, and ocean heating by the sun. How does more water stop ocean currents? If anything it makes them worse!

Actually higher ocean water levels would result in the slowing of the currents which bring warm water to the North Atlantic. The expected results would be massive cooling in Northern Europe. The is of course, a theory.

[RandomPasserby]

]I would like to add that today's newspaper had an article that told how the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report (that is based on ExxonMobil's numbers and records) that pretty much told that Exxon (and other oil companies of course) has used millions of dollars to create a false information campaign against global warming being real and has used very similar tactics to tobacco companies.

Even one of their main men in this was an ex-tobacco company lackey (who made a name list of 17k agaisnt global warming, some names were flase, most of the persons weren't climate scientists etc.).

Also Britain's Royal Society has blame Exxon of spreading false information last year.

So I guess most of "some scientists claim global warming isn't manmade!"-stuff is just bs from corrupt company lackeys. It's funny though that now there is lot of "it's not caused by men!" when few years back it was " there is no global warming at all!".

Those who want links for my info can google those, I read them from the 18.1.2007 copy of Helsingin Sanomat so no netlinks, sorry. Try exxon and royal society or USC.

[Plekto]

Correct. The the oceans have many different "streams" that act as conveyors of heat and cold. They work because the salinity of the water at the top is different than in the bottom(higher, IIRC) So you get a sort of convection thing going - just with the water.

Dilute the water and they all stop(no appreciable difference in salinity). And the oceans drop 10-20 degrees in a couple of decades, which is a huge amount colder for anyone near the higher or lower latitudes(conversely it gets warmer in near the equator).

So you get ice everywhere up north. Of course, guess where most of the industrialized world is located? Yeah - not in Sudan on higher ground. ;)

[Trump]

OK, salinity is one of the many factors that influence currents. Actually, if you have large pockets of less salty water (combined with current saltier water) doesn't that actually increase currents? Regardless, let's even for a moment say you are correct that currents will decrease, the oceans cool, etc. You say we get ice... But if you get ice doesn't the sea level go back down?? I'm just trying to follow your logic to see how all of this destroys the world and I really can't.

Seriously, no one knows for sure what is going on. The system is far far too complex.

[NERD]

Ozone holes would've been a far greater issue if people did not get their act together and ban CFC- in fact, any aerosol sprays containing CFCs are all but banned for the past decade or so.

Of course, there was no debate about the hole in the ozone layer, and was taken care of relatively easier than the Global Warming issue.

Environmental issues are difficult to make snap judgments because there are so many factors behind what cause them and what would be the effects of such issues in both the short term and the long term. However, the balance of nature is so delicate that once we actually know what's going on, it's often too late to repair the damage or costs much more than to prevent such damage from taking place in the first place.

[Jetsetlemming]

There is no "balance of nature", unless you mean how it manages not to destroy itself while careening as fast as it can in whatever direction it can find. Similar to a bicycle: Because it's moving forward, it won't fall to either side. Attempt to stop it, and it'll topple over. Nature's constantly in a flux, in a change. It never stays still, not locally or globally.

[NERD]

Yeah, but that doesn't justify the loss of diversity in the environment due to human activity, because God knows how many species of lifeforms have been eradicated already due to it. Not to mention rapidly changing landscape.

I guess I have more appreciation for nature than you do, and whenever I see different animals/plants on the brink of extinction, many of them that were able to survive the challenges thrown by nature and are living examples of evolution, and being able to adapt to the smallest niche of nature, I find it utterly depressing. What I find even more depressing is that most people won't give two fucks about it as long as it's not them suffering. But I know that a nature most creatures can't survive will not be an easy environment for human beings to survive. Even if we can maintain certain quality of life, the cost will grow much more expensive, unless we do more to preserve the environment.

[Jetsetlemming]

I consider humanity as part of nature, though. If an animal can't adapt to the existence of another animal, then it's not adapting to nature.
I appreciate nature fine, I just don't regard it as something seperate from us. Humans are part of nature, and their actions as humans are no different than the actions of any other animal, except on a larger scale. Cows create plenty of greenhouse gasses. Beavers change river layouts and possibly endanger fish and underwater life by draining or flood their habitats. All animals effect all the others for good or bad. We happen to build concrete living areas and pollute, while planting trees and saving wildlife that would otherwise without human intervention go extinct. We work to save just as many species that are dying out without any fault of humans as we do ones endangered by human pollution and building. I don't regard human interaction with the rest of nature as inherently screwing it up or ruining it. Just... us being what we are.

[japanat]

Yeah, but that doesn't justify the loss of diversity in the environment due to human activity, because God knows how many species of lifeforms have been eradicated already due to it. Not to mention rapidly changing landscape.

I guess I have more appreciation for nature than you do, and whenever I see different animals/plants on the brink of extinction, many of them that were able to survive the challenges thrown by nature and are living examples of evolution, and being able to adapt to the smallest niche of nature, I find it utterly depressing. What I find even more depressing is that most people won't give two fucks about it as long as it's not them suffering. But I know that a nature most creatures can't survive will not be an easy environment for human beings to survive. Even if we can maintain certain quality of life, the cost will grow much more expensive, unless we do more to preserve the environment.Have you ever lived in 'nature'? Everything kills everything else. Even the quietest of forests is filled with death.

Well, well over 99% of all creatures that have lived on earth are extinct. The real question is will we kill enough to collapse the food chain that keeps us alive. The earth will definitely survive, some kinds of live almost assuredly survive. The only question is if mankind will...

I want to clean up the environment so that my children and grandchildren (a concept that is much easier for me to grasp) will live full, healthy lives, and won't die gasping for air with asthma or COPD like my mom is, due to breathing all the crap in the air.

[NERD]

Have you ever lived in 'nature'? Everything kills everything else. Even the quietest of forests is filled with death.

Well, well over 99% of all creatures that have lived on earth are extinct. The real question is will we kill enough to collapse the food chain that keeps us alive. The earth will definitely survive, some kinds of live almost assuredly survive. The only question is if mankind will...

I want to clean up the environment so that my children and grandchildren (a concept that is much easier for me to grasp) will live full, healthy lives, and won't die gasping for air with asthma or COPD like my mom is, due to breathing all the crap in the air.

True, but killing in nature is done only to transfer nutrition from one lifeform to another. Therefore, it is not the same as the killing done by our civilizations, where its the by-product of human activity that is causing those species to die- from over fishing/hunting, chemical containment, and simply the loss of habitat driven out by our activities.

Mass extinctions have taken place in the past- five times, actually. It's just that the current rate of extinctions may be the fastest one yet. I highly recommend that you read this article if you are concerned.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

All I have to say is that if our environment is slowly turning inhospitable, we will be one of the last ones to really realize it, because we have one of the longer lifespans of any creatures on Earth, and also thanks to the advance in modern medicine. However, certain creatures are much more susceptible to the change of the environment, namely the amphibians which are going extinct.

I consider humanity as part of nature, though. If an animal can't adapt to the existence of another animal, then it's not adapting to nature.
I appreciate nature fine, I just don't regard it as something seperate from us. Humans are part of nature, and their actions as humans are no different than the actions of any other animal, except on a larger scale. Cows create plenty of greenhouse gasses. Beavers change river layouts and possibly endanger fish and underwater life by draining or flood their habitats. All animals effect all the others for good or bad. We happen to build concrete living areas and pollute, while planting trees and saving wildlife that would otherwise without human intervention go extinct. We work to save just as many species that are dying out without any fault of humans as we do ones endangered by human pollution and building. I don't regard human interaction with the rest of nature as inherently screwing it up or ruining it. Just... us being what we are.

But can WE survive without nature, or at least the form of nature as it is right now? It is entirely possible, as the Earth is becoming more depleted as our society advances, but that doesn't mean the future will be peachy.

Humans are part of nature, albeit one of the most destructive part of it. There are some conservation efforts, and while I appreciate it, if the government were up to regulating the business to be more eco-friendly, a good part of the conservation efforts won't be necessary. And this is a growing problem in developing nations such as China, where the concept of environmentalism is behind capitalism. The freshwater dolphins in Yangtze probably went extinct because of such mentality.

It is possible that there are some animals going extinct without human interventions whatsoever, or any direct/indirect result of our society. However, it is only far too easy to see the cases where human activities are responsible for their demise.

And I don't take that 'just as being as we are' mentality, because that is essentially conceding that we are ignorant and responsible for killing those creatures, and even if we have to face a darker future thanks to us screwing that up, then we got only ourselves to blame.

Lastly, while the general public may not be active in preserving the environment, there are some paranoia going around with the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink. We are responsible for the smog and contamination of the air, which also causes respiratory illnesses, and possibly cancer. And we are perfectly aware that the freshwater supply in the world is dwindling, where in third world many people become ill and die because they lack a source of clean water, while more developed nations sell water bottles at a higher rate than oil. Not to mention that the organic food market is on the rise- say what you want, but we are becoming suspicious of natural products to the point where we are willing to pay the premium for something more purer, while such actions may not be necessary if we tried to maintain the level of cleanliness in nature.

[Kaji]

Are you implying that animals kill solely for need, and not for any form of entertainment? The term "a game of cat and mouse" didn't come from nowhere, and I know that my little brother's turtle loves nothing more than to let a group of feeder fish grow large enough to wrestle it just to go on a rampage, take a bite out of the stomach of each one, and leave them twitching to die a slow death until my brother puts them out of their misery...

Nature is cruel, whether you choose to accept it or not. If Bambi's mother hadn't been shot by a hunter, she probably would have been eaten by something else.

[Cherub Rock]

OK, salinity is one of the many factors that influence currents. Actually, if you have large pockets of less salty water (combined with current saltier water) doesn't that actually increase currents? Regardless, let's even for a moment say you are correct that currents will decrease, the oceans cool, etc. You say we get ice... But if you get ice doesn't the sea level go back down?? I'm just trying to follow your logic to see how all of this destroys the world and I really can't.

Seriously, no one knows for sure what is going on. The system is far far too complex.

It wouldn't destroy the world. It's more of a balancing effect really. The Atlantic drift that warms the waters of Northern Europe would slow down, causing cooling in the area and yes, counter-balance global warming which is melting the ice caps. This wouldn't stop Greenland or the North Pole from melting though because this process is, like all things being discussed in this thread, something that would take eons to notice.

And of course, all of this is a theory. It might not even happen this way.

[Kaji]

And of course, all of this is a theory. It might not even happen this way.

That right there is at the heart of much of the debate.

[Cherub Rock]

Are you implying that animals kill solely for need, and not for any form of entertainment? The term "a game of cat and mouse" didn't come from nowhere, and I know that my little brother's turtle loves nothing more than to let a group of feeder fish grow large enough to wrestle it just to go on a rampage, take a bite out of the stomach of each one, and leave them twitching to die a slow death until my brother puts them out of their misery...

Nature is cruel, whether you choose to accept it or not. If Bambi's mother hadn't been shot by a hunter, she probably would have been eaten by something else.

Lots of animals that maintain the pack mentality will exibit Alpha Male traits which include occasionally the killing of other males just so that the Alpha Male's genes are the only ones that are passed on. I think this is a better example really, because it is actually engrained into their behavior. It's an instinct almost. And when you "import" that idea so-to-speak into the human world it would be like a polygamist who forces his wives to do all the work and support him and kills any male who tries to seduce one of them away.

And this is something you see in many, many species. It isn't a "need." It's one animal fighting to pass his genes on and willing to kill to do it. If you break it down into something as simple as that then even more species can be included.

There are very few examples of wild animals caring for other species. You see the rabbit and the deer pictures, or that lion that hugs the woman who saved her, but those are anomalies. For the most part the only non-domesticated creatures on Earth that display a general affection towards other species are humans.

[Jetsetlemming]

Yep. There's plenty of killing in the animal kingdom besides a "transfer of nutrition". Take deer for example:
Adult bucks in the mating season will kill each other for sport and in competition for the females. They're so revved up on mating hormones they'll bludgeon each other to death with their antlers. The doe themselves will also kill (or try, at least) anything she sees as a threat to her young.
Fresh water is hardly "dwindling". Yes, in the third world it can be hard in places to get water, and yes, we sell bottled water. However, we also have a near infinite supply of clean fresh water pumped into our homes from water treatment facilities that purify and detoxificate the water and add small amounts of chlorine and flouride, and the lack of water in some places is more likely caused by droughts than it is pollution.

[Matt W]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?hp&ex=1170565200&en=20d5f48fa7a3c24c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

U.N. panel declares global warming unequivocal, and very likely caused by humans. The report was approved by 113 countries, including the U.S. There really is no debate.

[Angelyne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?hp&ex=1170565200&en=20d5f48fa7a3c24c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

U.N. panel declares global warming unequivocal, and very likely caused by humans. The report was approved by 113 countries, including the U.S. There really is no debate.


Yes, there is a debate. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1131275.stm)

[Matt W]

Please, the world scientific community has spoken, and the vast majority of scientists agree. You can always find people who will disagree with anything. It would be the height of stupidity to focus on the small chance that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, rather than the preponderance of evidence saying global warming is real, and incredibly serious.

[Jetsetlemming]

A news story I read on that scientific declaration said they used individual droughts, localized higher weather in some areas, larger storms, etc. as "proof" of global warming. The same idiot stuff that people who normally don't understand the science and workings of the theory chalk up to global warming, even though they are just the year to year natural variances of weather, and couldn't possibly have anything to do with global warming based on the global tempurature change thus far according to climate studies. The only global warming effect today are some polar ice caps melting (While others are growing, but that's besides the point that it's generally accepted as "ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING DID IT!!11!1"). The point is that global warming will effect us outside the polar ice caps *in the future* due to further rising tempuratures.
If these are the world's best scientists, then I weep for humanity.

[Angelyne]

Please, the world scientific community has spoken, and the vast majority of scientists agree. You can always find people who will disagree with anything. It would be the height of stupidity to focus on the small chance that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, rather than the preponderance of evidence saying global warming is real, and incredibly serious.

Of course they are going to agree--do you know how much funding they would lose if they suddenly reversed their position? The IPCC members and many scientists would be out of jobs if they suddenly said, "oops, after years of study, we were wrong". To quote a scientist in the article I posted:

"I think there is a political agenda here. There is a lobby which makes money out of global warming promotion and research, and governments around the world collect taxes on the back of it all."

Despite what is taught in schools, scientists are human, and thus aren't always ethical or unbiased.


That said, scientists used to agree that the Earth was the center of the universe. Scientists used to agree that the Earth was flat. And as recently as the 1970s, there was scientific consensus that "global cooling" would be the demise of us all (funny how this part is often forgotten).

EDIT: Fixed a typo

[Matt W]

What news story?

The report is thousands of pages long and took years of work. It is serious work, backed by the world, and if anything, based on some of the articles ive been reading, is optimistic.
"the climate change panel is forbidden by its charter to enter into speculation"-from the nyt article above.
Your knowledge of the issue is obviously not very large, if you think "the only global warming effect today are some polar ice caps melting". There are already many negative effects of global warming today, including huge damages to species of plants and animals, agriculture...just read a newspaper daily and you'll see read of many such instances.

Also, this is an interesting article about how scientists are being paid to write articles critical of the report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/sc_afp/unclimateusdeny

[Angelyne]

A news story I read on that scientific declaration said they used individual droughts, localized higher weather in some areas, larger storms, etc. as "proof" of global warming. The same idiot stuff that people who normally don't understand the science and workings of the theory chalk up to global warming, even though they are just the year to year natural variances of weather, and couldn't possibly have anything to do with global warming based on the global tempurature change thus far according to climate studies. The only global warming effect today are some polar ice caps melting (While others are growing, but that's besides the point that it's generally accepted as "ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING DID IT!!11!1"). The point is that global warming will effect us outside the polar ice caps *in the future* due to further rising tempuratures.
If these are the world's best scientists, then I weep for humanity.

This reminds me...

People should read the data that was reviewed by the IPCC. One study that was reviewed was one that took measurements of CO2 levels next to volcanoes in Hawaii, and came to the brilliant conclusion that there was more C02 emissions in the air than there should be.

Well, no fucking shit there is going to be increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere above volcanic activity :bang:

[Matt W]

Of course they are going to agree--do you know how much funding they would lose if they suddenly reversed their position? The IPCC members and many scientists would be out of jobs if they suddenly said, "oops, after years of study, we were wrong". To quote a scientist in the article I posted:
Despite what is taught in schools, scientists are human, and thus aren't always ethical or unbiased.
That said, scientists used to agree that the Earth was the center of the universe. Scientists used to agree that the Earth was flat. And as recently as the 1970s, there was scientific consensus that "global cooling" would be the demise of us all (funny how this part is often forgotten).

EDIT: Fixed a typo

The scientists that did this report were UNPAID, and it takes an incredibly cynical person to believe that the 95% of scientists in the world who say that global warming is real are pulling a huge hoax on the world, so a few can make some extra money. If anything, if you could do studies showing global warming is bullshit, you'd make more money and get more attention.

Pointing out that scientists used to say the world was flat and other outdated stuff to show that scientists are fallible is an ineffective tactic in my mind. Who cares??? Science has made enormous strides, and global warming is one of the most studied theories in history. There is an enormous amount of data, a preponderance of which supports global warming. You obviously have no respect for science.

Could the scientists be wrong? Yes, but the fact of the matter is that to the best of our knowledge, global warming is real, and I can't think of anything stupidier than just holding out for small chance its not, instead of acting to mitigate as much as possible the catastrophic effects of unmitigated global warming. Not to mention alternative energy and the like would make our air, water, and land cleaner, and improve technology and efficiency.

[RandomPasserby]

Btw. Why are only pro-human made global warming scientists lining their pockets but the "skeptics" of course aren't getting funding from oil companies, car companies and united states government?
That's one point I have never understood.

[Beowulf]

Did you not even read the previous post? They were UNPAID! That means they didn't get paid!

[RandomPasserby]

Did you not even read the previous post? They were UNPAID! That means they didn't get paid!
Oh sorry, I meant that "those scientists are saying it's man-made only because they get paid to say so"-argument never seems to consider that maybe industry lobbyists would paid for scientists to not say it's man-made.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Well, here's an example here of Exxon paying off scientists to undermine global warming:

Hoi've got a lovely bunch of coconuts. (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html)

[shimanotaka]

Oh, for crying out loud!
according to a flash animation on the front page of the IPCC's website, the people contributing to the IPCC 4AR include:

* 2500+ scientific expert reviewers
* 850+ Contributing authors
* 450+ lead authors

from over 130 countries, contributing for the last 6 years.

of these, the contributors to the Working group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included [4]

* 600 authors from 40 countries
* Over 620 expert reviewers
* a large number of government reviewers
* Representatives from 113 governments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC

Any obstinate layman challenging the conclusions of the IPCC should get a serious smack on the head.

This is not some fucking conspiracy to trick people out of their hard-earned money. This is not something a bunch of college professors thought up a late night over a bottle of scotch. This is not some kind of Roswell coverup where all the scientists have been handpicked and brainwashed to produce the desired result.

We have all these scientists and experts saying "Hm... We might just be in deep shit here, and it looks like we're the ones causing it..." :watson: and then we have these opposition gophers that keep popping their heads out of their holes, shouting "We need more evidence!", "What if they're wrong?" and the classic "I found a page on the net, saying that they're wrong!".

Yes, there is a chance that the IPCC might be wrong, but there is a soooo much bigger chance that you are wrong so STFU already and leave science to the scientists!






And finally, I have illustrated the situation, although I want to stress that this is my personal view and that I haven't used scientific methods to come up with this conclusion:
http://www.devade.net/images/shitfan.gif

[RandomPasserby]

Ahhahahahaahahahahaaha, Shimanotaka! That's cruel and so blunt while being so right!

[Beowulf]

Shimanotaka, god bless you for saying it before I did.