A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[dWintermut3]

I think it's undoubtedly the case that climate change (NOT global warming, "warming" is a gross oversimplification") is happening.

What I dispute is the hubris that insists that brief mayfly creatures like humans can cause climate change when a single volcanic eruption emits more greenhouse gas than all of Los Angeles does in two years.

And yes prevention is better than trying to fix things after-the-fact but it's a question of cost. In the middle of a global economic meltdown putting strictures on businesses is irresponsible. being homeless is a lot more dangerous than being exposed to .5* warmer temperatures.

And remember, even the most dire estimates of climate change say warming is less than one degree right now.

 

[angry_flashlight]

I think the Lord and Master highlights my issue with Climate Change:
The actual issue of caring about the environment has been super-ceded by politics, holier-than-thou attitudes and human greed, pushing the actual point of the movement away from what it's original intention (taking care of the Earth/environment). The human-caused Global Warming conclusion has been utilized by governments and activists groups (who may or may not have ulterior motives for their proposed "improvements") to scare and guilt the public into doing exactly what they want. If you don't support a particular cause or change, then "YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT!!11!!1!!ONE!!!". This kind of name calling prevents open, factual discussion from occurring in the public eye. With the current state of affairs, you must support their changes or become a pariah of society by "not caring about the environment", even if you've figured out that the proposed changes would actually be worse than what they claim is going on right now, or simply benefit only the rich and powerful. Right now you have to obey or else be ostracized, which only benefits those doing the preaching, not the whole society.

What we should do is stop playing the blame game like small children and decide what we are going to do that would most benefit us without letting other areas of life (politics, profit, etc.) affect our decisions. The current solutions are unfeasible and/or counterproductive in large scale (i.e. global) situations. We must also take into account how any proposed changes/restructurings affect the poorest of the poor, not just us the rich ones who can afford the nice shiny solar panels/whatever. While we may feel good that we have a "zero carbon footprint", I'm pretty sure Mr. ILiveInAMudHutAndAmVeryVeryHungry doesn't if those restrictions prevent him from feeding his family or making a living.

 

[cantgetaname]

I think it's undoubtedly the case that climate change (NOT global warming, "warming" is a gross oversimplification") is happening.

What I dispute is the hubris that insists that brief mayfly creatures like humans can cause climate change when a single volcanic eruption emits more greenhouse gas than all of Los Angeles does in two years.

And yes prevention is better than trying to fix things after-the-fact but it's a question of cost. In the middle of a global economic meltdown putting strictures on businesses is irresponsible. being homeless is a lot more dangerous than being exposed to .5* warmer temperatures.

And remember, even the most dire estimates of climate change say warming is less than one degree right now.

Again the volcano thing, please refer to my earlier post for links. But NO people put out more CO2 then volcanoes every year. Just google it. BUT they MAY put out more Greenhouse gases JUST FOR THE FACT that water vapor is a greenhouse gas (I don't know the numbers on how much water they put out.) But water vapor comes down A LOT quicker then CO2. (Precipitation)

 

[Ritter315]

"You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now." - The reason for that for most people is the fact that a LOT of quote "global warming prevention" ideas are HORRIBLE and have long-term unseen concequences for economies, ecosystems, and the earth itself. Also, the idea of global warming isnt even a recent idea. Global warming is a natural part of the earths lifecycle and has been for as long as theres BEEN an earth. There's alos global cooling, like there was in the 1920s and people were thinking of melting the polar ice caps just like some people nowadays want to put sulfer in the air to reduce the temp.
Economic ideas like limiting production, energy consumption etc. are also doing harm to some of the poorest in society. People hate it when a coal power plant opens up, even if it allows people to stop using dirtier fuel sources in their own homes, or if cars arent going to be energy efficent even if they are very cheap (Like the Ta-ta Nano in India)
Ultimately, people who argue for these envirnmental laws often only care about the end and dont even LOOK at the means and that doesnt even guarentee that the ends are going to be met. In many cases envirnment group's proposals would actually lead to a greater destruction of th envirnment in the future.
Humans are BARELY making an impact, AT ALL. Air pollution is the clostest thing you can argue, but our water is cleaner than ever, our forests are bigger than ever, and people are living longer than ever. So when people say that we should keep on doing exactly what we should keep doing, I an see why they think its for the best.

 

[cantgetaname]

"You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now." - The reason for that for most people is the fact that a LOT of quote "global warming prevention" ideas are HORRIBLE and have long-term unseen concequences for economies, ecosystems, and the earth itself. Also, the idea of global warming isnt even a recent idea. Global warming is a natural part of the earths lifecycle and has been for as long as theres BEEN an earth. There's alos global cooling, like there was in the 1920s and people were thinking of melting the polar ice caps just like some people nowadays want to put sulfer in the air to reduce the temp.
Economic ideas like limiting production, energy consumption etc. are also doing harm to some of the poorest in society. People hate it when a coal power plant opens up, even if it allows people to stop using dirtier fuel sources in their own homes, or if cars arent going to be energy efficent even if they are very cheap (Like the Ta-ta Nano in India)
Ultimately, people who argue for these envirnmental laws often only care about the end and dont even LOOK at the means and that doesnt even guarentee that the ends are going to be met. In many cases envirnment group's proposals would actually lead to a greater destruction of th envirnment in the future.
Humans are BARELY making an impact, AT ALL. Air pollution is the clostest thing you can argue, but our water is cleaner than ever, our forests are bigger than ever, and people are living longer than ever. So when people say that we should keep on doing exactly what we should keep doing, I an see why they think its for the best.

"Our water is cleaner then ever, our forests are bigger" WHAT?!

 

[thiosk]

This thread has generally run its course, but I'll just pop in to say:

There is no point of debate in the general public, as the vast majority of the debaters do not understand the fundamentals of the concept.

The skeptics generally ignore any given evidence and continue to tout the same lines. They tend not to know what sunspots are, but boy, theres this blog that talks about maunder minima!

The proponents (henceforth, the "believers") will likewise tend to reject contrary evidence with claims that the evidence was produced with oil money.

Neither party really knows anything except what is spoon fed to them by their own biased political parties. Its hilarious when the skeptics come in spouting off about their god given right to drive SUVs and punch hippies in the face, and don't forget its just a plot to introduce the Amero and dissolve the USA. Its also bizzare when the believers come up scream at the top of their lungs, lumping acid rain, global warming, holey ozone, and dying owls in the same ranty sentence.

The funniest part of it all is that we WILL transition to a primarily solar-based economy, not because of global warming, but because it will eventually be cheaper per kilowatt hour than fossil fuels.

And I'm actually putting my money where my mouth is.

 

[radioactive lemur]

Okay, so first of all: I think global warming is absolutely happening. But I also respect those who have a strong opinion contrary to mine (Well, those who aren't arses about it anyway).

But my question is thus: You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now.

I've got people here in Australia, prominent people, people in Government, saying things along the lines of "Global Warming has not been proven as fact, so just keep right on doing exactly what you're doing now, because it's not causing immediate and noticeable damage."

That seems unnecessarily reckless to me. After all, doesn't the old idiom read "A stitch in time saves nine"?

EDIT: I feel that people are taking "global warming" point slightly too literally. I'm also talking about pollution in general. But that doesn't have as many obsessive back-and-forthers.

We are against it because those "preventative measures" are all forms of subtly veiled communism creeping into a once great Western society. Government control of industry, more taxes on unnecessary thing like "carbon" and shit like that. We're talking stuff that hurts literally everyone in society from the poor to the rich (except the leftwing elitist bureaucrats and professors paid million dollar grants to produce the results they are told to produce. It's a CONVENIENT lie for those bastards). Look at it this way, say you may or may not have a disease. You feel fine and all tests come back inconclusive. Would you be willing to take a daily 12 gauge needle in your scrotum as a "preventative measure"? I bet you wouldn't but that's what you're asking society to do.

 

[cantgetaname]

This thread has generally run its course, but I'll just pop in to say:

There is no point of debate in the general public, as the vast majority of the debaters do not understand the fundamentals of the concept.

The skeptics generally ignore any given evidence and continue to tout the same lines. They tend not to know what sunspots are, but boy, theres this blog that talks about maunder minima!

The proponents (henceforth, the "believers") will likewise tend to reject contrary evidence with claims that the evidence was produced with oil money.

Neither party really knows anything except what is spoon fed to them by their own biased political parties. Its hilarious when the skeptics come in spouting off about their god given right to drive SUVs and punch hippies in the face, and don't forget its just a plot to introduce the Amero and dissolve the USA. Its also bizzare when the believers come up scream at the top of their lungs, lumping acid rain, global warming, holey ozone, and dying owls in the same ranty sentence.

The funniest part of it all is that we WILL transition to a primarily solar-based economy, not because of global warming, but because it will eventually be cheaper per kilowatt hour than fossil fuels.

And I'm actually putting my money where my mouth is.

Ya, you win. I totally agree with you. You really can't change anyone's mind.
/quit thread
(and I'm serious, not being sarcastic here)

 

[Heronblade]

We are against it because those "preventative measures" are all forms of subtly veiled communism creeping into a once great Western society. Government control of industry, more taxes on unnecessary thing like "carbon" and shit like that. We're talking stuff that hurts literally everyone in society from the poor to the rich (except the leftwing elitist bureaucrats and professors paid million dollar grants to produce the results they are told to produce. It's a CONVENIENT lie for those bastards). Look at it this way, say you may or may not have a disease. You feel fine and all tests come back inconclusive. Would you be willing to take a daily 12 gauge needle in your scrotum as a "preventative measure"? I bet you wouldn't but that's what you're asking society to do.

This is what I get for being just slightly on the more skeptical side of life. Thanks to me not swallowing what the media says without question and choosing to form my own opinions, I get lumped in with the crazies like this guy. What the hell is up with Republicans and seeing communism everywhere anyways?

 

[sneakypenguin]

It's just that many of the solutions are economically inefficient, or only achieve sinking quality of life.

I'll take the time to point out in this thread that that statement is utter fucking shit. Believe it not, becoming more environmentally sustainable goes hand in hand with creating a better, more enjoyable, more equitable society. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of people or groups that look at these things as an overall paradigm shift. Essentially, steps taken to solve climate change (and air pollution in general, and water pollution, and habitat destruction, and energy inefficiency) are a means towards the same end as steps taken to solve world hunger, poverty and general economic inequality, unhealthy and unfulfilling lifestyles, and autocracy. There's huge amounts of material on this; it's a total myth that we'll have to go back to the dark ages to combat global warming and pollution in general.

If it was economically efficient then it would already be in place(hence why green products succeed because people get extra utility and their willingness to pay exceeds non green products). No one says we'd have to go back to the dark ages, its just driving anything other than gas or diesel powered cars or trucks isn't practical, and solar or wind power still has the excess capacity problem, and clean engergy like dams or tidal power is only doable in select places. If its not economically optimal then it is a decrease in quality of life. Hardly a fucking shit statement as you so eloquently said.

 

[Boom129]

I think this winter in the US is a pretty good sign that at least SOMETHING is wrong with the climate

 

[Singularly Datarific]

GLoBAL warming? No.
Climate Change? Heck yes, the climate is always changing- the idea that this planet will never change any of it's systems is an idiotic one.
(Insistent terminology on my part)
Anyways, what I believe is that consumer based "green" products are bogus. There is a moral meter in our minds that believes that if we do something nice, we are allowed to be mean a little bit more as offset, so if you're buying a prius, you drive twice as much cos you feel good about your driving, or you become preachy (good lord).
If you want to prevent it, it takes more than buying swirly light bulbs, you gotta rethink your laws of give and take.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

*Snip*

Now to say that global warming isn't real or hasn't been proven is stupid.

Now saying that we are causing it is a different matter.

Global warming exists, so does global cooling. The planet goes through natural phases of warming and cooling.

From all that I have read and listened to, I don't believe we are having a significant effect, not enough of an effect that we have that we have to have solutions in the next 100 or more years. Though if we work calmly and steadily, instead of setting us back by restricting certain fuel sources like coal and oil.

Spoiler: Spoilered because this is a really long explanation, but it is the best solution to speed the research of clean energies.

It is because of stupid restrictions that the US can't break it's dependance on foreign oil. We shouldn't just be looking into researching cleaner fuels, we should also be using the unclean resources as a way of breaking our dependance on foreign oil.

I know you said you are in Australia, but since I'm not I am looking at it from the perspective of my country.

Now the last time I got gas last week it was $3.99 a gallon. I haven't looked lately, but I'm willing to bet it is now over $4.00 a gallon now. Since three weeks ago it was $3.84, and then in one week it when up 14 cents to $3.99.

Now our oh so wonderful President Obama over here, he has the stupidity to attack the coal industry and say that we have to put extra charges on it since it is dirty and we have to stop using it.

He's moronic thinking is cutting the US off from its quickest solution to get off foreign oil.

The solution is using our vast amounts of coal. We take our coal and turn it into synthetic oil, we then turn that oil into gasoline. Now when I heard about this it was just before Obama was elected. Then it was projected that if we did this, a barrel of our synthetic oil would cost around $55, that is a little less then half of what regular oil cost now.

If we turned that into gas and stations hear sold it at a reasonable profit from what the synthetic oil prices a barrel would be at, here we would be paying half less of what we are paying now for gas.

One might ask, "why would we want to do that, it would make gas cheaper and people would be willing to use more?" Well, right now, one of the reasons oil prices get higher is because the foreign holders raise prices for several reasons, one of those reasons is that when they see new clean energies threatening their business, they raise prices as a penalty. This harms the economy because it makes people spend less because they have to save that money for when they are at the pump. This makes people less willing to try and innovate in clean energies and fuel sources, because such innovations are going to take many many years, and they aren't sure if the country can stand such high gas prices for more than a decade.

Foreign oil prices will raise quickly as well if they catch wind that the US is cutting its dependance by creating its on cheap oil source. But, since we already have the tools at hand to quickly make our synthetic oil and make it into gas, it wouldn't take more than a couple years to cut our foreign oil dependance completely. The country can survive higher foreign oil prices for that long.

When our dependance is cut, clean energies and fuel research can work at a faster pace without fear of gas prices going up because of the foreign oil companies raising the barrel price. But since Obama and people of his mindset can't think clearly, US clean energies research will most likely be slowed and set back by at least a decade.

If we did do the synthetic oil plan, since we have tons and tons of coal for it, I'm sure we would have enough cheap oil that we could and would share it with other countries like Australia. It would go a long way in boosting your country's research as well.

There you have it, problems solved.

 

[Bobbity]

Even if we aren't the cause of rising temperatures, which I don't believe that we necessarily are, we're still accelerating these changes, and we still have the power to slow them.

While I'm at it, I hate that this has become a political issue. On Australian television today, you can hear people in the opposition receive just as much attention for their skepticism on this subject, as you would an accredited scientist. You have the right arguing against it, the left arguing for it, but no one much arguing about it.

Climate change has become so wrapped up in political ideologies and governmental agendas that we can't actually get anything done.

Oh, and something that amused me on television the other day: A politician talking about how it's going to be a big political issue in the future. The process is slow, and if we wait until we start seeing truly serious consequences, then it'll be almost to late to act. Why the fuck is humanity incapable of dealing with its problems before they screw us up?

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I think this winter in the US is a pretty good sign that at least SOMETHING is wrong with the climate

Nope, nothing to see, just natural climate change.

If the popular view of global warming was actually happening, I wouldn't have experienced several days of winter weather this April. I shouldn't have to wear a jacket to keep warm in the spring if that type global warming was real.

What that really is is the planet being naturally unpredictable.

 

[Johnson McGee]

I do believe that there has been some weird-ass weather in recent years (i.e. the recent tornado season in the U.S.) and we should do whatever (reasonably) that we can to combat it.

However, I also have a problem with the way most people are approaching the problem. The reusable grocery bags take 200 or so times as much energy to produce as a regular bag, and most people always forget them at home anyway. Biofuels also take a huge amount of energy to grow and divert farmland from actual food, raising food costs.

Bottom line, we shouldn't just slap a green label on anything that seems like it's beneficial without doing a real review of what the impact is. Green techs will be way easier to implement if they are economically viable as well, for example, mining companies are clamoring to get fuel cell vehicles since they don't have to ventilate the exhaust from the mine shaft since it's just h2o. So rather than forcing the change to green, we should be finding the places where these techs give the most benefit, and they'll spread from there.

 

[imperialwar]

Global warming, australia : 34celsius day in MID autumn... yeah that sounds like a warm day to me when it SHOULD be getting cooler.

 

[Timotheus]

...

Ahem, first: The global temperature has also other factors, but the trend is set by greenhouse-effect.

Maybe, I was not as clear, as I intended. Imagine, if the Earth received sunrays permanently without any way to lose energy, it would continuiously heat up, because there is energy put into it. But fortunately the surface of earth emits IR and this emission depends on the temperature, the higher the temperature, the more energy is sent into space.

Then there is a temperature, when the IR emissions(temperaturedependent) and the insolation(constant) are nearly the same, which means, there are no major changes of temperature anymore. Of course if there is a different temperature, then there are 2 possibilities:
-higher temperature: The earth emits more IR than insolation and therefore cools down
-lower temperature: The earth emits less IR than insolation and therefore heats up
In both cases it tends toward the first mentioned temperature.

But how much energy the earth actually loses because of the IR is determined by the greenhouse-effect(gases that reflect a part of IR back to the Earth). You see the figure? Now the Earth loses less Energy and the sun still shines constantly on our planet. The temperature rises, until the point, when the damping of IR emission is balanced by the higher gross emission of IR on a higher level of temperature.

 

[Timotheus]

...

So it was my fault, that you didn't care to proof any of you claims? Thank you, I wasn't aware of that.

Also a couple of scientists refused to release data - they didn't change anything, nor drew false conclusions? That shows that the data and the conclusions are not to be trusted. Thank you, websites of fundamentalists(1st) and people ranting about the "leftist mainstream media" (3rd)