Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_TopicIcon
How can anyone take global warming predictions seriously?
March 3, 2007
6:52 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest,

You said nobody had anything to gain from global warming. I pointed out that somebody does. That's all I wanted to do.

March 3, 2007
7:06 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

WD,

Oh brother. You get on my case when I say I don't believe that GW is primarily caused by humans, yet you don't refute my claims. You claim that there's a concensus of scientists who say that people have caused it. Even if there were such a concensus, it wouldn't prove anything.

I attended graduate school in physics for a time. Of the faculty, about half were experimentalists, the other half theoreticians. The first group were skeptical about the theories and predictions of the second group. I have no doubt this same sort of skepticism prevails in various scientific circles regarding GW and its models.

The real question is: Does the scientific evidence support the notion that people have primarily caused GW? You are silent on this issue. You haven't refuted my arguments to this effect. Why?

All you do is imply I'm being unreasonable, ignorant, think I have superior knowledge, etc. If you really think I am, refute what I've said and stop with the name callling.

I've pointed out that the data used for GW models isn't necessarily accurate and the models themselves aren't complete. This cannot be refuted. Thus the saying, "garbage in, garbage out" applies to GW predictions. They cannot be trusted.

March 3, 2007
7:14 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

WD,

You say hundreds of historians say GW Bush is the worst president ever. What do you know of their political biases? What do you know of their party affiliations?

Sorry, but arguments like "hundreds of others believe as I do" doesn't hold much water with me. I especially don't trust the viewpoints of academics. Why? It can be summed up by what one of my college professors once told me. He said that before he started teaching college, he was a conservative. After 20 years of teaching, he was a liberal, because, as he said, you tend to fall in line with those who pay you.

So no matter what qualifications and prestige all the academics in the world might have, I don't trust them to be unbiased.

March 3, 2007
8:32 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Has anyone thought to state the obvious?

We humans are in plague proportions on this earth.

We are chopping all the trees down at an alarming rate while school children pretend to be replacing them in insignificant numbers.

We are making extinct, many species willy nilly.

We have already fished out much of the sea's marine life.

Nature has a way of dealing with plagues whether grasshopper, mice or any other life form.

Watch this space called earth for how nature deals with the human plague! It ain't a gunna be berry pretty.

March 3, 2007
9:03 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

seeker, thats why I asked.

So now, why are you concerned about who gains from this global warming thing?

Shouldnt the convern be more about, if its the right objective or not? Who is gaining - should not be a consideration at all.

March 4, 2007
12:29 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

seekr-
“ I believe in being good stewards of the environment, but I also believe we must balance the environment with other issues, such as the economy. If we emerge from this with more environmentally sound practices, that will be good. “
Yes, but I really don’t see how the economy can be more important than the ecology which sustains all life. I doubt it has to be considered as an either/or situation. Think of it on a smaller scale: if given a choice- would you want to be rich and unhealthy due to your frugalness (don’t ask me what, just use your imagination), or healthy and a little bit less wealthy due to what you spend on your health. The same with our planet. I think any cost to clean up our acts is a valuable investment in the future.
“I'm for truth, not for somebody's politically motivated decrees.”
Not everyone who is concerned about global warming has a political agenda. Some people don’t think that way, they just are concerned citizens and scientists.
“We already have the greatest deficit in US history. How can we afford to finance another issue -- trying to reverse or slow down global warming -- when we're asked to accept weighty regulation that won't necessarily return any significant results?”
Because we can’t afford NOT to try. There are some people with terminal diseases that have to decide whether or not they should pursue treatment which may or may not cure or prolong their life. It is an existential decision for those individuals I supposed. I imagine they often consider their families when they make their choice. If your opinion is that you want to take a gamble that taking measures against global warming will not make a difference, or that you do not “believe in it,” apparently no one can change that. However, you must understand why people don’t want to take any chances and see irreversible damage done to this planet. Problems with the economy are temporary, extinctions; pollution, deforestations and other atrocities are not quite so temporary.
“It's been shown that reforestation and planting of enough trees can cause the same decrease in global warming as the Kyoto protocol could in its regulation of the petroleum and other industries. Why isn't this ever mentioned officially?”
Uh, it has been stressed since I was a little girl (and I’m 37) that deforestation is a growing problem. Elementary school children are still reading about this.
“If the global warming debates were focused solely on convincing each of us to do our part to be more environmentally concerned, I'd be all for them. But when they focus instead on introducing more and expensive government control that won't necessarily produce measurable results, that's when I object.”
Can’t we have both? The message through various means has gone out to individuals; it is NECESSARY for governments to act when groups or individuals won’t do so on their own. Do you really think that a corporation that has millions to lose will so easily change their ways if they don’t have to without outside pressure?
“I think history shows that we have more to fear from excessive government control than we do from almost everything else, including the prospect of global warming.”
Oh that’s right, child labor, civil rights, women’s rights, health conditions in food and agriculture industries, medicine, the government should have butted out of those things too?
“Then if the evidence suggests that people aren't the major contributors to global warming, would you accept that?”
As far as I’m concerned I’ve seen enough evidence. If you don’t want to accept what has already been spoken about by science for decades now, I don’t know how I can convince you. Besides you already said you are not interested in a balanced debate. I heard your side, but why do you assume that my opinions and values would be easier to sway than yours? No, I don’t expect I will change my mind about this tree hugging stuff and run out and purchase a HUMMER, leave all the lights on in my house when I go out, start eating meat or voting conservative. I personally already believe we humans do a lot of damage even just seeing the very small fraction of what is known by me as a layperson. Please reread the FACTS that have been laid out in the above threads by people like Taz and WD. They are far more informed and eloquent and energetic than I. Like I said, I prefer to err on the side of caution, I would take a hike in taxes (and I don’t make much money) to support a greener country, I would accept more sacrifices if the powers that be decided they would benefit the environment. I can’t see how economics are a priority over life itself.

March 4, 2007
12:34 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

seekr-

Thanks for replying to my questions.

Please excuse double posting- the above posted w/out paragraphs.

“ I believe in being good stewards of the environment, but I also believe we must balance the environment with other issues, such as the economy. If we emerge from this with more environmentally sound practices, that will be good.“
Yes, but I really don’t see how the economy can be more important than the ecology which sustains all life. I doubt it has to be considered as an either/or situation. Think of it on a smaller scale: if given a choice- would you want to be rich and unhealthy due to your frugalness (don’t ask me what, just use your imagination), or healthy and a little bit less wealthy due to what you spend on your health. The same with our planet. I think any cost to clean up our acts is a valuable investment in the future.

“I'm for truth, not for somebody's politically motivated decrees.”
Not everyone who is concerned about global warming has a political agenda. Some people don’t think that way, they just are concerned citizens and scientists.

“We already have the greatest deficit in US history. How can we afford to finance another issue -- trying to reverse or slow down global warming -- when we're asked to accept weighty regulation that won't necessarily return any significant results?”
Because we can’t afford NOT to try. There are some people with terminal diseases that have to decide whether or not they should pursue treatment which may or may not cure or prolong their life. It is an existential decision for those individuals I supposed. I imagine they often consider their families when they make their choice. If your opinion is that you want to take a gamble that taking measures against global warming will not make a difference, or that you do not “believe in it,” apparently no one can change that. However, you must understand why people don’t want to take any chances and see irreversible damage done to this planet. Problems with the economy are temporary, extinctions; pollution, deforestations and other atrocities are not quite so temporary.

“It's been shown that reforestation and planting of enough trees can cause the same decrease in global warming as the Kyoto protocol could in its regulation of the petroleum and other industries. Why isn't this ever mentioned officially?”
Uh, it has been stressed in science textbooks since I was a little girl (and I’m 37) that deforestation is a growing problem. Elementary school children are still reading about this.

“If the global warming debates were focused solely on convincing each of us to do our part to be more environmentally concerned, I'd be all for them. But when they focus instead on introducing more and expensive government control that won't necessarily produce measurable results, that's when I object.”
Can’t we have both? I think we do. The message through various means has gone out to individuals; it is NECESSARY for governments to act when groups or individuals won’t do so on their own. Do you really think that a corporation that has millions to lose will so easily change their ways if they don’t have to without outside pressure?

“I think history shows that we have more to fear from excessive government control than we do from almost everything else, including the prospect of global warming.”
Oh that’s right, child labor, civil rights, women’s rights, health conditions in food and agriculture industries, medicine, the government should have butted out of those things too?

“Then if the evidence suggests that people aren't the major contributors to global warming, would you accept that?” As far as I’m concerned I’ve seen enough evidence. If you don’t want to accept what has already been spoken about by science for decades now, I don’t know how I can convince you. Besides you already said you are not interested in a balanced debate. I heard your side, but why do you assume that my opinions and values would be easier to sway than yours? No, I don’t expect I will change my mind about this tree hugging stuff and run out and purchase a HUMMER, leave all the lights on in my house when I go out, start eating meat or voting conservative. I personally already believe we humans do a lot of damage even just seeing the very small fraction of what is known by me as a layperson. Please reread the FACTS that have been laid out in the above threads by people like Taz and WD. They are far more informed and eloquent and energetic than I. Like I said, I prefer to err on the side of caution, I would take a hike in taxes (and I don’t make much money) to support a greener country, I would accept more sacrifices if the powers that be decided they would benefit the environment. I can’t see how economics are a priority over life itself.

March 4, 2007
4:20 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Here's a link to an article which those of you who are teachers might want to check out. It's about a video called "Oil on Ice" which the author (a teacher of 26 years) feels is even more powerful than "An Inconvenient Truth" and should be viewed by students before watching the Gore film.
< http://www.commondreams.org/vi.....302-23.htm

* First, it gives stinging statistics about our fossil fuel dependency.

* Secondly, it smashes the myth of economic havoc created by reducing and eliminating our oil addiction.
* Thirdly, Oil on Ice weaves commentary about our human spirit.
* Lastly, Oil on Ice squarely and unapologetically exposes the connection between big oil and our political powerbrokers.

The article concludes, "I ... hope that teachers acquire copies of both films (www.oilonice.org and http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/) and teach from them with passion and ignite a critical mass of concern, caring and ultimately action from our school children. The message is simple and clear: climate change is real, it can be solved and caring students can pave the way."

March 4, 2007
7:34 am
Avatar
1lost1
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Seeker, I am in AZ. Ask me the global warming question in about three months, it will be approx. 110 degrees out then. 🙂

March 4, 2007
1:40 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Seeker,

The point is that when most scientists believe something, you don't just go "how can anyone...takes seriously."

March 4, 2007
1:48 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Thats right, unless the scientist is WD (j/k).

Yea Seeker, I was thinking last night, all you believers must really hate the Discovery channel because it teaches evolution and stuff. Is that true? Do christians and other creationism believers hate this channe? I bet.

March 4, 2007
2:18 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Seeker you wrote.

"These two articles make it plain that global warming models are incomplete, politicians do not necessarily have their facts straight when they discuss global warming, and scientists do not agree about “facts” used to substantiate global warming"

First of all, I can find the articles you describe--please provide links.

The articles do not seem to weaken at all the idea that human activity is causing global warming.

"global warming models are incomplete,"

Seeker, pretty much every model of every natural process is incomplete. Our model of human conception and pregnancy, for example, is very incomplete. That doesn't mean you should have unprotected sex.

"scientists do not agree about 'facts'"

Seeker, of course scientists disagree sometimes. Different studies can give different results. That is why we need to do lots and lots of studies, and find consensus. Most studies point to GW, and human activity as the cause.

And the study that you mentioned--you are quibbling over a difference between 50 percent and 35% loss of snowpack...since freaking 1950?!

That is no exactly a damning discrepancy.

March 4, 2007
2:19 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Let's talk Greenhouse gases.

Over the past two centuries, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have risen by nearly 30 percent

Beyond climate effects, high CO2 levels also directly inhibit the growth of some plants—like forests. And wheat.

Even if CO2 caused no global warming, it could still cause an ecological and humanitarian catastrophe.

http://www.sciam.com/article.c.....sc=I100322

http://www.sciam.com/article.c.....9EC588ED9F

Increased CO2 levels could also reduce food supply for wild animals.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/6712

March 4, 2007
2:21 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

As long as we are talking snow pack evidence...how about an 80% reduction, as in Mt. Kilamanjaro

"The glaciers that have covered the top of the mountain for the past 11,700 years are rapidly disappearing. Over the past century, the ice cap volume has dropped by more than 80%[1]. In 2002, a study led by Ohio State University ice core paleoclimatologist Lonnie Thompson [2] predicted that ice on top of Africa's tallest peak would be gone between 2015 and 2020 [3] [4]. In March 2005, it was reported that the peak was now almost bare for the first time in 11,000 years [5]. A comparison of ice core records from Kilimanjaro suggests that conditions similar to those of today have not existed since then."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kilimanjaro

March 4, 2007
2:23 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Since Seekr raised subject of Pacific Northwest snow pack--here is an article citing the potential economic consequences of that loss.

Global Warming Poses Risks to Pacific Northwest Snowpack, Ski Resorts

A new study at Oregon State University has outlined the "at risk" snowpacks in the Pacific Northwest (shown on the graphic as areas in the "warm snow-high precip" category), most of which fall in the Cascade Range of Oregon, parts of the southern Cascade Range of Washington, and Olympic National Park.

"Previous studies show that snowpack has fluctuated widely in the past, but appears to be trending downward in the Pacific Northwest since the 1920s," said Anne Nolin, an assistant professor in the OSU Department of Geosciences. "This region has already experienced the largest declines in snowpack in the western United States.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/nc.....6/snow.htm

March 4, 2007
2:24 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here is some more direct evidence of increasing temperatures.

150 years of warming

News
September 11, 2000 150 Years of Warming By Kristin Leutwyler

Limnologist John Magnuson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a team of 13 scientists compiled data on 39 lakes and rivers across the U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia and Japan by drawing on newspaper archives, transportation ledgers and religious observances. At all but one site, they found evidence of rising temperatures over 150 years, with freezing dates occurring on average 8.7 days later and breaking up dates, 9.8 days earlier. "The importance of these records," Magnuson says, "is that they come from very simple direct human observations, making them difficult to refute."

http://www.sciam.com/article.c.....9EC588ED9F

March 4, 2007
2:26 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This one is hard to miss--5,000 square miles of ice shelf--Its been there for 5,000 years. Now suddenly—pfft!

Antarctic Ice Collapse Linked to Greenhouse Gases

In the past 33 years, more than 5,000 square miles of ice shelves have disintegrated in the Antarctic Peninsula, which is the area that curves up toward South America.

http://channels.isp.netscape.c.....70226-0942

http://www.commondreams.org/he.....016-07.htm

March 4, 2007
8:01 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Next, we know for sure that humans have released a heck of a lot of greenhouse gases and also destroyed natural mechanisms for sequestering those gases.

March 6, 2007
6:42 pm
Avatar
sleepless in uk
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hey Seek

Now you know I am one who thinks we are responsible for our planet, and that I worry about the world we are leaving behind for our kids....I firmly believe that humans are responsible for the mess we have created...but....

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons, there is a documentary being aired here in the uk on Thursday.....Global Warming - The Great Swindle

Heres the link...you might like to take a look...

love Sleepless Hayley Jude

http://www.channel4.com/scienc.....index.html

March 6, 2007
11:18 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

And just one more bit of reasoning.

1) GW is undeniably happening.

2) If it continues at this rate, a catastrophe is coming.

3) Increasing greenhouse gases are the likely explanation for current GW.

4) Most scientists think that human activities--destruction of greenhouse gas sequestration (forests, ocean critters, etc) and release of those gases is what has contributed most strongly to GW.

WDs THESIS

Global warming is definitely happening, and it looks like a catastrophe of biblical proportions on the way. It does not matter if humans caused it. What does matter is that humans have the ability to do something about it.

It doesn't matter who caused it. What matters is that we have to decide NOW if the costs of allowing GW to continue as it has been are acceptable to us. And we need to be realistic about what those costs are.

I for one, see that the cost of unchecked global warming could easily be the end of human beings as a technological-industrial species, followed by the premature extinction of the human race.

Prevention of the premature extinction of the human species is an undercurrent to almost everything I have to say about anything, btw.

March 7, 2007
9:19 am
Avatar
site coordinator
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hey WD & sleepless.

My thoughts on the matter focus on the fact that even if global warming was a 'hoax' for political reasons - it will ultimately, in the long run, create more jobs, and ultimately, in the long run, give 'less fortunate people' access to energy, clean water, and cleaner air.

Free energy doesn't happen overnight though. It requires upfront costs, research, installation, etc. But the more the world surges toward this end, the free-er people & the planet will be from just about everything. People consume energy. Energy is a major problem now, and an IMMENSE problem for the future, world wide.

March 7, 2007
1:05 pm
Avatar
sleepless in uk
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi SC

Couldnt agree more....was just trying to play devil's advocate and tease Seek a little 🙂

March 7, 2007
2:15 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

naughty blackbird! ;-p

March 7, 2007
3:44 pm
Avatar
site coordinator
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi sleepless!

Teasing seeker!? 🙂

I wasn't really pointing at you & WD, but literally saying "Hey/hi" in my introduction cuz you were the last posts... and Hi kroika!

The planet hugging threads are of interest to me, so I keep a beat on them... thanks to everyone, seeker too, for keeping our thoughts rolling on these issues...

March 7, 2007
7:36 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Check out this website: http://www.nationalcenter.org/.....PA203.html

It's an article from The National Center for Public Policy Research, and it claims that the sun is responsible for much of global warming. According to it, "So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence."

It also claims that the sun might be cooling off in the near future:

"Baliunas says there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.

Indeed, it could already be happening. Of the 1.5° F in warming the planet experienced over the last 150 years, two-thirds of that increase, or one degree, occurred between 1850 and 1940. In the last 50 years, the planetary temperature increased at a significantly slower rate of 0.5° F - precisely when dramatically increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide emissions should have been accelerating warming. Further buttressing the arguments for future cooling is the evidence from NASA satellites that the global temperature has actually fallen 0.04° F since 1979."

Seeker

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 323
Currently Online:
76
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 110949
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38555
Posts: 714244
Newest Members:
MarriageResearch, Ailuros, pratavetra, jameshelen77, jasonbloom, brtechnosoft
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2020 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information