A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics
- Thread starter TheRealCJ
- Start date
Incorrect. The standard pattern that's been identified is a 90,000 cool period followed by a 10,000 year warm period. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Now put two and two together and we get...Dana22 said:
Now that's certainly not to say that dumping massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere is a good thing, just that is has not cause or significantly accelerated the natural cycle. If anything, it may help subvert a massive climate shift, not cause one.
The laws of physics are directly related to whether patterns, it's an entirely plausible hypothesis - I'm not a meteorologist, but I don't see why it should be dismissed out of hand.bdcjacko said:
Honestly, I was expecting someone to make a Fullmetal Alchemist joke.
Well, it really annoys me when people see that we get tons of snow in the winter and go "OH, NO GLOBAL WARMING", when it actually supports said theory. (Basically, higher temperatures = more evaporation = more precipitation, if you really want something slightly more in depth, feel free to ask)
It's actually very unpopular to support global warming now, actually. I think I know one person that believes in its existence. Uno. The rest either think it's a part of a natural cycle (which is reasonable) or are a part of the group I mentioned above that thinks because it gets cold in the winter global warming doesn't exist.
It's actually very unpopular to support global warming now, actually. I think I know one person that believes in its existence. Uno. The rest either think it's a part of a natural cycle (which is reasonable) or are a part of the group I mentioned above that thinks because it gets cold in the winter global warming doesn't exist.
So, CO2 doesn't trap heat; Venus would disagree with this statement.theheroofaction said:
I definitely believe climate change, why? The overwhelming wealth of scientific evidence that humans are adversely effecting our atmosphere with the tons of carbon we're putting up there, in a chronic fashion, every second of every day for longer than the last 150 years.
Of course the Earth will be A O.K. in 1000 years if we continue to do nothing, but that doesn't mean it will be hospitable to human habitation.
The comparison was that if one area is getting unusually heavy precipitation, somewhere else would be getting far less. Weather patterns are far too complex for such a simple if A then B statement. For example, lets say for whatever reason that the oceans began giving off more water vapor. This would result in greater precipitation in some parts of the world without necessarily decreasing it in others. Being a meteorologist wouldn't help much either, the science is far too complex for even trained professionals to get beyond the educated guess stage.Dense_Electric said:
The problem is that these politicians and industry leaders are not being straight with us. The truth is that they dont care. There may or may not be issues that will destroy our environment and ultimately kill off the human race, but that's the future's problem. We see this everywhere:TheRealCJ said:
In the Arab countries that are rich in oil, the leaders are selling it and getting rich. Eventually they will run out, and the U.S. will still be sitting on huge reserves. All Arab countries will fall into dire poverty and become third world countries. Do the current leaders care, or do they want to own as many cars as possible before they die?
Unnecessary surgeries are taking place all the time. To boot, pharmaceutical companies are pumping out propaganda to make people think they need more drugs. On top of the other problems this causes, people are using antibiotics far far more often than is necessary. It is a known fact that extensive use of antibiotics causes pathogens to mutate and become resistant. As this happens, we are going to fall farther and farther behind. You would think that surgery would get safer as time goes by, but in 100 years from now, it is likely that intrusive surgery will be extremely dangerous if not impossible. It could even get bad enough that the bacteria we inadvertently genetically engineered will just kill us all. People like to just hide in their fool's fortresses and assume this is too terrible to actually happen, but we are most certainly making it happen. The pharmaceutical and plastic surgeons dont care about our grandchildren. They just want their own lives to be more luxurious.
I told you I wasn't talking about a single scientist and I could provide links for my claims. You asked for it so here we go:Deepzound said:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/epajrnl16&div=43&id=&page=
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWQdP4_7SycC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Global+warming+skeptic&ots=1JXDbuNT4b&sig=-8jmFPL437XLLO-EicRG9BGu3Bg#v=onepage&q=Global%20warming%20skeptic&f=false
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Do you want more? Oh yes support for my claim about donations:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/
What I trivialize is the sum of 30% of the contacted portion scientific community's answer of two vague questions. I also trivialize all polls because they are the least scientific way to learn any information.
The concept that a majority is naturally correct is a fairly standard logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Which is why polls are complete crap used to pressure people into potentially irrational positions.
Thing is polls aren't even appealing to the majority. They appeal to the majority of a segment which is then inferred to apply to the whole, a less convincing approach. When only 30% of the segment bother to answer the questions I loss the little respect I have for this position.
There are a myriad of other plausible reasons outside of fossil fuel where humans are a significant factor. I can provide links for these theories but I have already linked more documents than you will probably bother reading though if pressed I will link them.
I would like to point out that you are placing the burden of proof on me. While I more than expected this I wonder if you have even bothered to look at actual scientific papers from your own side. I thought about critiquing one of their papers but you would most likely accuse me once again of "Cherry Picking" so it would be more fun if you pick one yourself.
Thank you, I think its important to always be open to the possibility that you may be wrong if you expect to be able to convince others that they may be wrong.Jedihunter4 said:
I read up further and apparently at least one ice age has begun as a result of a fresh water increase in the Oceans as a barrier between a lake in North America and the ocean broke (don't know the exact details) and the lake flowed into the Ocean and stopped the oceanic belts. But I agree, ice age or not, we, at the very least, have a responsibility to decrease pollution levels and become a more environmentally friendly race.
I do not have time at present to compile an individual response to each of the documents linked, but will give a quick impression that most of it is either old and/or the same stuff that always circulates among skeptics - nothing new under the sun.TheTutonicDrone said:
I will compile a fair response to each paper after having gone through them, but not today.
Now please, link everything you have and I will be very happy to look through it all at a later point in time.
And yes, I will give you a comprehensive list of peer-reviewed journals the next time I'm looking through the article databases at my university.
Uh.. you read more than the title of this right? "A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures." Already the title is a complete fabrication, and what the hell is an earth scientist? and thirdly this was a poll (Of two very vague questions are you 'Is the mean temperature going up compared to levels pre-1800, and are humans affecting it') of 3,146 people from a directory of 2033 different departments (This is approximately 10,200 people according to the article which if you have graduated grade three I'm pretty sure you'll be able to tell that this in fact is less than a third of the -Contacted scientists- the others declined to respond so in fact the blurb is a lie as well the poll was among 10,200 scientists that are directly involved in this research and less than a third felt strongly enough to respond. Wow) This is precisely the problem that environmentalism has had for a long time, you put up these scary numbers, you beat your chests and god help the people that disagree with you, and the facts aren't checked, the numbers are completely fudged and it makes the movement look like a bunch of dishonest hacks. Now this may not be most of you but holy crap guys, do some checking before you put these numbers up as truth! This article showcases just how little thought actually went into this "Study" even among the 30ish percent of the scientists that you called and actually responded your own article has no 97% in there anywhere! The questions are so vague they are meaningless and they are just bloody questions! There is no (Could you show us the work that lead to this conclusion?) The environment isn't a church we can't just pray to the trees and hope for miracles the environment is hard science, we need to know what effect we are having, we need to know how we can fix it, and we need chuck all this 'go green' nonsense in the trash. The environmental movement seems to hurt waaaay more than it helps (Yay we banned DDT! oh wait people in africa were able to stop the threat of malaria with it, oh wellDeepzound said:
, way we stopped Nuclear power plants from being built, forcing us to rely more on coal gas and other filthy fossil fuels instead of the comparatively safe and clean nuclear power, and force us to rely on reactors older than we allow school buses to be be because we aren't allowed to build new ones that produce 0 waste and are 1000% more effective at generating more power, high five! ))I oppose current attempts to thwart Global Warming because the likes of Al Gore have failed to make a convincing case to demonstrate the planet's getting hotter because of mankind. If summer's are hot, it's global warming. If there's a major storm, global warming. Hell, if it's cold? Also global warming--even if the alarmists didn't originally predict it would be so cold.
It just seems to me that they're making this all up as they go along, and hoping they get as much money and power as they can before people start calling them out for their BS.
And about CFC's. I oppose the ban on CFC's because, similar to the problem with Global Warming, there also isn't very strong evidence they destroy the ozone layer. Even if you believe otherwise, I know someone, an asthma sufferer, who is forced to use an unsafe, non-CFC based alternative to the CFC product this person should be using. In other words, this person's health is being endangered because the eco-fanatics fear that even limiting CFC's to just asthma inhalers would hurt the environment too much. Does that sound sane or reasonable to you?
It just seems to me that they're making this all up as they go along, and hoping they get as much money and power as they can before people start calling them out for their BS.
And about CFC's. I oppose the ban on CFC's because, similar to the problem with Global Warming, there also isn't very strong evidence they destroy the ozone layer. Even if you believe otherwise, I know someone, an asthma sufferer, who is forced to use an unsafe, non-CFC based alternative to the CFC product this person should be using. In other words, this person's health is being endangered because the eco-fanatics fear that even limiting CFC's to just asthma inhalers would hurt the environment too much. Does that sound sane or reasonable to you?
Yes, our water is cleaner and our forests ARE bigger. Go back 400 years ago and drink the water in the great lakes you're going to get sick, you had to boil it. And our forestland have been almost increased by 40 acres in the last 90 years because as trees are cut down they are replanted at an increased rate.cantgetaname said:
I'm sorry, that statement is ridiculous. I can tell you right now, we are fucking up nature. I'm no tree hugger, but I know that we are not very "nature in-tuned". Water is just as dirty as it has been for a long time. The only reason it has been cleaner recently is because we were so horrible in our treatment of water in the industrial revolution. Who knew pumping heavy metals into water was bad for the environment? Forests are decreasing rapidly also. In fact, the Amazon Rainforest has been calculated to have actually added to the increase in CO2 emissions because people keep on cutting down acres of it and burning it.Ritter315 said:
Now to disprove what you said in your inaccurate rant. I would like to see how the effects of CO2 production eliminating ideas are so bad. Most of the reasonable ones include pursuing reliable sources of energy: wind, solar, water, fusion (still conceptual), ect. They also include acting responsibly and not driving around in gas guzzling hummers, using diesel cars, and using public transportation.
You are right in one area, global warming is not an uncommon phenomenon on earth (especially it is the single reason why we aren't icicles). EXCEPT, you don't seem to understand what is happening right now. This is the largest spike in temperatures and CO2 levels on earth since the beginning of the Cretatiouse period. Do you know what happened to cause that spike? Thousands of volcanic eruptions happening simultaneously. Do you see that happening today? NO. What is happening now is something unprecedented in the history of the earth, we are causing this, undoubtedly. There is A HUGE amount of evidence compiled by scientists all around the globe that proves this fact.
I live in Wisconsin and I don't believe in taking measures to preventing global warming because the U.S. government has a simply ridiculous amount of debt and I believe that we should focus all our energies on that. Not that anyone actually does. At all.
I do sort of agree with this, I agree that global warming is mainly a result of us exiting an ice age, but I also think we should be moving away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy sources just for the fact that they are renewable and cleaner.Rosetta said:
I decided to check your sourcesTheTutonicDrone said:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf: Made in 1990, obvious problem since new data has shown a rapid decrease in ice levels of the poles. He mostly using data from the 1980's-70's. Not a good example.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf: Checked the author up. Professor from Arizona university (because we all know of that university's high quality academics). I won't discredit him about his qualifications since it is not my place to criticize. Though i did notice that is awards include one named after a man who publicly denounced the theory of relativity and is used by the right wing constantly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html: A news story that produced information that both ignored that "global warming" is just the common name for global climate change. So saying "There is snow on the ground, thus global warming is false" is just as good of a reason as disproving evolution using a glass of water.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/epajrnl16&div=43&id=&page=: I couldn't read this since the page is blocked to all people not having a subscription. Though i honestly doubt you had one either.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWQdP4_7SycC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Global+warming+skeptic&ots=1JXDbuNT4b&sig=-8jmFPL437XLLO-EicRG9BGu3Bg#v=onepage&q=Global%20warming%20skeptic&f=false: A small scale book that no one really knows about (except of coarse the doubters who praise it since it is one of the few slightly legitimate books out there that share the same opinion). I can't say much else on it, but a review from a Harvard professor did discredit it saying "It has many holes in its research and takes many statements out of context" (it was not a very in depth review).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm: A story that unfortunately suffers from the same problem as most on the subject. It claims 1: That humans are not the cause 2: A small drop in temp at some point completely disproves global warming 3: That there is a "conspiracy" (not literally of coarse) to blow it out of proportions for money.
In review: all of your sources except 2 (one because I am not willing to read a full book and the other since the full source is not readable) are either flawed or inept at proving anything beyond the normal tripe that is spewed by the anti-global warming crowd.