A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[Razhem]

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"?

I'm a skeptik, I believer we do have some influence, but in the global scale it is barely noticeable. Remember that a single volcano eruption causes a hell of a lot more chaos that we can cause in years.

On the other hand I do agree being stagnant dicks and ignoring all the other potential energy sources available and being discovered is pure idiocy. I'm a firm believer in nuclear fusion when it is finally workable and in it's implementation. I am also a firm supporter of wave energy and nuclear fission energy to start closing petrol stations and other carbon based installations, with nuclear fission energy being substituted with fusion the moment it actually works.

The thing is though, everything is a business, being green is also a business. It's been shown that hybrids do jackshit about controlling gasoline consumption yet people gobble it up and it is heavily lobbied for, because car companies are paying for that PR from the left wing political sectors (the same way the right wing centres in other aspects that have usually been centred on them). The whole healthy food is an industry, no matter how wholesome their labels may look like and there are businesses centred on renewable energies (not a bad thing by itself of course, but when energy sources that are mostly sort of half assed in efficiency get a free pass cause they are "eco-friendly" I start getting slightly annoyed). Also, another one is corn based biofuels which cause a shit ton of damage (require heavy amounts of water to grow the crops and is the equivalent of throwing your food to a furnace) yet people actually believe they are helping the planet with them. This are the sort of proposed solutions that rile me up since they clearly have the best of intentions, but have not been thought through enough (you can make biofuels work, but not like that).

It is also used as a huge excuse to keep countries in development process down. To put it bluntly, the ozone emission limits of the US (When they bother to respect them) or other first world countries are a shit ton higher than the ones you are allowed to have if you are in development process and well, they are enforced a lot more heavily on the developing countries, meaning that unless they blow stupid amounts of resources they don't have on something new and "ecofriendly", their maximum industrial potential is truncated from the get go, and I'm preeeeetty sure it's not a coincidence.

Basically, I'm all for applying preventive or new methods to get our energy flow going that are more friendly to the environment, but only when they actually fucking work and are not used as an excuse to bumrape developing countries.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Okay, you can sod right off.

Maturity at its finest.

You're right, I should have just laughed maniacally and completely ignored what the poster I was replying to was trying to explain.

Much more mature.

Let me check something... Nope. Nowhere did I say I was mature; I simply said your post was immature.

Try again?

Uh, no, I don't think I will. Because I still want you to go away and leave the adults to talk.

Again! Such astounding maturity; implying I'm a child. Bravo.

You're certainly acting like one, what with your stupid typed laughter and constant appeal-to-ridicule.

 

[Zero=Interrupt]

Discussing Global Warming is the same as discussing religion. There are people who absolutely believe in it, and there are people who believe it's absolutely, positively a hoax. Neither is going to convince the other side otherwise.

That said, the Earth warms and cools in cycles. It has been doing this for millions of years without mankind being present on it. We know this from geologic samples taken from substrata around the globe.

Global warming is a hoax. It has been proven so with the concocted study data released in the emails from the the UK. The results of the original studies were skewed by them taking a wide sample of data, and then throwing everything that didn't agree with their theory. It has been pushed and pushed by the mainstream media until everyone believes it as true, when all it is is some sham to sell electric cars and "green" technology, none of which works. Moreover, it's being used by big government types to get into your life by telling you what to eat, drink, drive, power your house with, and which lightbulbs you can screw in. For all of you people who believe in having the freedom to do what you want, when you want, wake up, because this is what's going on.

Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to get away from fossil fuels and having a clean environment. Everyone like things to be clean and tidy, me included. However, running around like Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling solves nothing, and neither does giving the government more power in the name of rampant environmentalism, which is what the whole Global Warming fiasco is.

 

[Tharwen]

Global Warming is not an issue that we can realistically affect (in either direction), but pollution is. Not polluting the environment is a good thing, and I suspect the whole global warming thing may have been encouraged by various governments to try to work against that problem.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Go read articles like say... this one from the Huffington Post [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html], which delve into the myriad ways that environmental alarmists misconstrue, stretch, or outright ignore facts to push their own agenda (in this particular example, things Al Gore has said).

And then take a gander at a few speeches by the late Michael Crichton [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/crichton_3.pdf], where he quite rightly points out that the science isn't there to support the hysteria about "Global Warming" when there are far more pressing and immediate humanitarian crises to worry about (his speech "The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming" starts at page 20 and is especially relevant).

The "accepted notion" that Global Warming is a real thing that is happening and it is definitely our fault and only drastic action taken right now can avert it oh noes, the thing about that is that there isn't and never has been any conclusive proof. No, what we have is "the broad consensus of climate scientists".

[HEADING=3]Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.[/HEADING]​

The work of science has nothing to do with consensus, that's the arena of politicians and pundits - science cares only for reproducible results, and those are precisely what the "broad consensus" of climate scientists who have convinced the world that Global Warming is fact can not deliver.

Should we take measures to reduce air pollution? Certainly, but not at the cost of crippling the global economy to achieve emission standards that may objectively have no impact on "reducing" the impact of a trend that we also cannot prove is even happening (Global Warming) - we should be doing that because we want to improve air quality, and it should be a result of innovation over time. This artificial sense of urgency that would have us bring our nations to financial ruin to "avert the crisis" is extremely short-sighted and arrogant; anyone who insists we can accurately predict the future is lying, or extremely ignorant.

 

[Lilani]

As indicated, I'm hardly an eco-warrior. But I do believe that we should be doing more than we are now.

Things like Hybrid cars are barely a step up from what we are doing now. It's still old-tech, just used in new ways. Science needs to spend more time actually doing cutting-edge research than worrying about what looks good at this very moment.

As I said earlier, what we need is not a stop-gap measure to make it appear as if we're doing the right thing, but a massive shift in our fundamental beliefs and habits. It's happened numerous times over the course of Human history, why can't it happen again?

And I agree, we do need to do more, and I think that shift is already occurring. Those who were pretty moderate about the environment (like me) are taking those little steps, and as the old generation falls away and we have our kids it will permeate society that much more.

What people are the most worried about is that the changeover will negatively affect them. That it will hinder what they do now, whether personally, financially, or both. Some people like their big trucks, and MILLIONS of people rely on oil for their livelihood, and for many it's been that way for generations. The thought of oil being gone in the near future scares the shit out of them, and the the fact that there are people out there who are shouting and demanding that it be gone even sooner scares them even more.

What we really need is for people to be for the benefits of both sides, not just against the negatives of one side. Both sides need to understand that neither is completely wrong, and that both will have to give in order to receive. They're going to have to open up to the possibility of settling the dispute rather than "winning" it.

 

[ryo02]

I can end this argument right now you just have to ask yourself whats the worst that could happen if your wrong but we followed your advice. (both sides of the arguement)

if those who think its real are wrong
the worst is we wasted some money on things we should be doing anyway.

-------------------------------

if the ones who think it isnt real are wrong

flooding disasters many people and animals dead. animal species are allready dying out just look up the plight of pollinating insects needed for many of our food crops our live stock wont be immune either.
hell if things heat up enough the very air we breath and much of the ground we walk on is at risk.

yknow the whole rivers of blood kinda shit.

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

Yes, because as we all know, as the heat increases, melting the ice caps, MORE ice will form.

Yes, the heat that melted the polar caps will allow more ice to form. Indeed. Ice thrives during a global shift towards heat.

Hell, it's easy to show! What you do is put some ice in a cup, set it in the sun and wait for the ice to melt. What will happen? The cup will freeze!

Bahahahahahaha.

Right, so what you're saying is because you can't understand a basic concept it must it must be wrong? This is the science, and I seem to remember you being the one who said that the science was right.

Omg. My sides hurt. Stop, please.

You think... making the temp. hotter will cause more ice to form... because the other ice melted and lowered the sea temp. that was being heated by the atmosphere... that melted two continents...

Epic. Pure epic.

Ironic really, that you are now arguing from the point baseless opinions and ignorance when you where advocating science a few minutes ago. And yes, when the belts stop bringing hot water from the equator then the poles will cool down more than enough to stop melting. Enough for much of the polar water to completely freeze actually. The equator will not suffer an Ice age, it will remain hot.

Mmmmm, and the heat that melted two massive continents wouldn't warm the water around them at all. Nope.

Yes, because it is not anywhere near hot enough without also having the heat brought up from the Oceanic belts. You do realise that you given no sources, no info, no science to base what you say? Your's is a pure argument of ignorance. You seem to be under the blatantly wrong impression that your presumptions are more accurate then multiple scientific studies.

 

[G1eet]

I'm concerned with all the capitalization that's been going on. "We need to worry about Global Warming."

What about the destruction of wetlands? Hmm. Mountaintop removal mining? No wanton capitalization there. Hydrofracking? Oil spills? Overfishing? Whaling? Deforestation? Anthropogenic extinction? The sensationalization of environmentalism?


...Puppy mills?

 

[Duffeknol]

You know what's so funny about this subject? The believers don't see that their own opinion is literally being sold right back at them by the people they usually protest against. Allow me to explain:

In this world, there is a huge group of people that will always blame the government and large multinational corporations for just about anything. 9/11 was an inside job, the war on terror is just a bonus for the arms industry, etc etc, you get the idea. It doesn't matter what is true or not, these people have already made up their minds.

Now, the people they hate (governments and multinationals) did the smartest thing possible. They came up with something (global warming) that would A) make them a shitload of money and B) would STILL make them appear as the bad guys. That way, the people that would never ever side with them, are now siding with them without even knowing who is actually benefiting from it.

Since the global warming scam, energy companies have made huge amounts of money by simply coming up with 'green' solutions. Climate scientists have seen an incredible surge in funding. But, worst of all, governments are actually overriding democratic processes in order to push the green agenda. Signing treaties that cannot be reverted by national governments after a new one is installed (such as the Kyoto or (attempted) Kopenhagen agreements), are absolutely undemocratic and go against the very foundations upon which a lot of countries have based their constitutions. Call me paranoid, but things like this are the first small steps on the way to a world government.

The people that usually protest such dictatorial decisions are now silent, because apparently everything is allowed in the name of 'green'.

As lord Monckton once put it:

They call themselves green,
because they're too yellow
to admit they're reds.

 

[Treblaine]

We had the same shit over the ozone layer 20 years ago.

but it's way easier to ban a new chemical group like CFCs than cut back on using a very old chemical group known as "fossil fuels".

 

[artanis_neravar]

It's funny that the people arguing for global warming are the ones who have no idea that it will cause the next Ice Age even though all science points that way, all they seem to be using for their "facts are what the extremely rating biased news outlets say

 

[TheRealCJ]

As indicated, I'm hardly an eco-warrior. But I do believe that we should be doing more than we are now.

Things like Hybrid cars are barely a step up from what we are doing now. It's still old-tech, just used in new ways. Science needs to spend more time actually doing cutting-edge research than worrying about what looks good at this very moment.

As I said earlier, what we need is not a stop-gap measure to make it appear as if we're doing the right thing, but a massive shift in our fundamental beliefs and habits. It's happened numerous times over the course of Human history, why can't it happen again?

And I agree, we do need to do more, and I think that shift is already occurring. Those who were pretty moderate about the environment (like me) are taking those little steps, and as the old generation falls away and we have our kids it will permeate society that much more.

What people are the most worried about is that the changeover will negatively affect them. That it will hinder what they do now, whether personally, financially, or both. Some people like their big trucks, and MILLIONS of people rely on oil for their livelihood, and for many it's been that way for generations. The thought of oil being gone in the near future scares the shit out of them, and the the fact that there are people out there who are shouting and demanding that it be gone even sooner scares them even more.

What we really need is for people to be for the benefits of both sides, not just against the negatives of one side. Both sides need to understand that neither is completely wrong, and that both will have to give in order to receive. They're going to have to open up to the possibility of settling the dispute rather than "winning" it.

I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't agree with those people who love their big trucks. 4WDing is my main hobby outside of games, and it's pretty destructive.

But at the same time, there are ways of completely negating the effects of a big Diesel engine (already more clean than a petrol engine) on the environment. For example, a mate and I filled up an old Landcruiser with carbonised vegetable oil. Ran like a dog, but it still ran. Had to flush the engine afterwards as well, but considering it was a 1985-built big-block engine, I think it did pretty well without any modifications or even tweaking.

Now, if scientists could spend more time working on that, making vegetable oils or even things like ethyl alcohols more efficient, and designing engines that run them natively, we've pretty much just solved the energy crisis. Hell, make it something like Hydrogen and you've just solved the car-emissions crisis too.

But no, they're spending all their time finding new ways to stick another big lump of toxic metals into your car.

 

[TheRealCJ]

I'm concerned with all the capitalization that's been going on. "We need to worry about Global Warming."

What about the destruction of wetlands? Hmm. Mountaintop removal mining? No wanton capitalization there. Hydrofracking? Oil spills? Overfishing? Whaling? Deforestation? Anthropogenic extinction? The sensationalization of environmentalism?


...Puppy mills?

Like I edited in my OP, I just really used Global Warming as my main example because there are the largest number of ignorant skeptics in that particular debate.

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

This is rubbish, I'll ask you this, why?

Seriously Going by the science of Thermo-fluids, I've tried to rationalise this and the only way I can conceive of flow becoming so turbulent due to an decrease in density is if there was a truly massive decrease of density.

But then taking into account the difference in density of water and sea water is only 2.5%, okay so 2.5% would probably not be enough of a decrease in density to increase flow and make the flow turbulent and dissipate , but I'll enteratian the idea that it would. The proportion of how much water is in the ice caps would have to be a large percentage of the water on earth compared to how much is stored in the seas.

Then you see this http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html only 1.715% of all water if stored in all glaciers and ice caps. where as 96.5% is in the sea, so no the ice caps melting will not cause the currents to stop flowing.

This is the exact sort of sudo science you see trying to justify this ridiculous idea of extreme changes to the world, to try and scare people into doing what they want simply because they do not understand, and it sounds plausible if you know nothing about the subject.

Edit: did not quote enough by accident

I'll admit it is unknown how much fresh water would be needed to disrupt the belt, but it has been disrupted before as a result of an increase of fresh-water. Here is a NASA article that can explain the concept far better that I can

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/

Edit: another article that I found interesting: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/paleoclimatology_evidence_2.php

Yes, because it is not anywhere near hot enough without also having the heat brought up from the Oceanic belts.

The belts warmed by the atmosphere.

XD

Okay, reread what I have posted then reply once you are actually able to grasp the concept.

Yer this guy may be saying total rubbish as it why does not make sense, which do no favours to those who are informed and disagree.

Also quoting scientific studies does not make you right on this subject, as the scientific is very much still in debate, but as rightly pointed out, the reason it has been allowed to be pushed as total truth by many government's is because it suits political agenda's.

You are certainly right, I was simply pointing out his hypocrisy at claiming 'The science is right' and then refusing to believe actual scientific studies, or provide any 'science' of his own

 

[Plurralbles]

I've never been against things that lower harmful affects to the environment...

it doesn't matter if it's bullshit or not, less damage is always better, no matter how hte dmage manifests itself(which is: changing, not warming... or cooling... simply, changing)

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

I do belive that there are some climate changes, but this is natural and we have seen it before.
Go back to 1974, we had the excact same idea as now, we belived we had fucked our enviroment so bad that it would end with disaster.
Im not saying it could never happen, but for those of us that have done more than just listen to fear propaganda and swallow whole the bullshit of Al Gore without checking other sources, have seen that this is a natural occurence and that the weather and climate goes through cycles where it seems like its to become un-naturally hot or cold, and then changes back again like a constant wave. But I'm for trying to better the release of the potetial harmful gasses.

The current view on how we should fight these climate changes are wrong IMO.

We should be properly awarding people for doing the right thing, not just punishing everybody.
Of course people will dislike and rebel against rules and taxation that just costs them money.

 

[Susurrus]

SNIP

Global warming may be happening. Personally, I'm skeptical, at least on the causes and on the speed. For a number of reasons:
i) Models have consistently been shown to take account of far too few factors to draw any proper scientific conclusions.
ii) In the UK, one of the most prominent environmental research facilities, the University of East Anglia, was engaged in some extremely unscrupulous practice with their data, yet the only inquiry into it was an internal university one, which exonerated everyone involved.
iii) The Media often exaggerates things. Ten years ago, the hole in the Ozone layer was going to kill us all. When was the last time you heard about it?
iv) The timescale the data is based on is too small in a geological time-frame to be relevant.
v) Climate-change scientists often ignore pertinent evidence, exaggerating the possibilities. For example, did you know that one increasingly-accepted historical reason for the explosion of growth of population of Europe in the Middle Ages was a several degree temperature rise, allowing increasing amounts of crops to be grown by fewer people (leading to towns...). If that's the case, how can a 2 degree rise have the potential consequences that have been suggested, and why is this evidence never addressed?

However, pollution is still a practical problem. Finding alternative fuels is crucial, not least because oil is limited in supply. Having said that, most current green fuels are both unworkable on a large scale, and inappropriate. Did you know that a battery for an electric car takes more to make in terms of carbon emissions than it can possibly recoup in its lifetime, and that its effect upon the environment is WORSE, in terms of fossil fuels used, than a diesel engine? Positing fake solutions is not the way to address it - real research is needed, and someone needs to fund it, and that someone ought to be government and industry.

I also think its very difficult for a lay person to get any idea of how real the threat is. Government and media manipulation of the issues is so strong, that getting any real idea is impossible. Things like the UEA fiasco don't really help.

I'm all for alternative fuels, but I want one that works, not some stupid concession which doesn't actually help. And if a government really wants to do something about it, let it start making laws that actually help. Make businesses turn lights off at night. Take away standby modes on electronic goods. Require increased efficiency. Don't claim motorists are the evil responsible.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Global warming is just the oppposite to an ice age: It is part of nature. We shouldn't be trying to stop it, we should just prepare for it's arrival.

It will happen, then it will go away, then the world will cool down for a few more million years and then there will be another ice age... and so on and so forth until the sun explodes and kills us all

 

[teebeeohh]

because admitting you are fat and don't like it would force you to change your eating habits and who wants to do that? Oh wrong topic... still a valid point