Global Warming

It amazes me that people don't understand that burning fossil fuels into our atmosphere isn't going to have some kind of negative effect. Then again, people to this day still inhale cigarette smoke directly in their lungs despite overwhelming proof that it causes cancer and other ailments.

The problem with global warming is that people don't know the difference between weather and climate. Also, the big concern is a selfish one because it's mostly about worrying about what it will do to humans.

The planet will get warm, the ice caps will melt, inlands will flood, species will die and the Earth will become a bit more inhospitable to the animal kingdom. The Earth itself however doesn't care and will eventually heal itself and life will begin a new.

Yeah but fossil fuels themselves will run out eventually. Electric cars are slowly gaining popularity.

Eventually they will have to be made mandatory at some point.
We'll be fine.
 
Myth or not, I couldn't give a shit about it.

I'm not going to be around to ever have to seriously worry about it.

Thats the same mindset of countries /governments today.

Even if they KNOW there's a serious threat in the FUTURE.

Why suffer the financial cost now?
Leave that to a future regime to handle.
 
I bet every single one of those scientists listed there have some kind of connection to energy industry funded think tanks or organizations. Phillip Morris also got so called scientists and doctors to say smoking doesn't cause cancer.

And keep in mind, this list is only a few dozen compared to HUNDREDS of scientists all over the world who say global warming is very real.

And every single accredited scientific organization on the planet all say man made climate change exists. This includes the national science academies of almost every nation.

Even our own Pentagon says there will be a problem with climate change in the future and it threatens our national security.

So the only tards who actually believe all the climate denial propaganda are a bunch of stupid suckers being used by the energy industry who don't give a f*ck about them.

It's not necessarily 97 % http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
as for the energy industry, well it's giving people huge numbers of jobs all over fly over country, and tons of them would likely be unemployed otherwise. They apparently give more of a fuck about them than many of the global warming alarmists do.
 
The level of stupid exhibited ITT has to be trolling.

I also will never understand what people have against levels of taxes. It's what taxes go on surely?
 
Yes and No.

Is the planet warming? Yes. It has been on a steady and consistent and almost straight line warming trend since the last ice age and it seems to be returning to the temperatures the planet was (pre man's emissions) before that ice age.

Did Liberal's and Gore's and Wealth Transfer advocates try to seize on this warming trend to create arguable the largest wealth transfer in the planets history while at the same time doing nothing to combat the amount of man-made emissions and in fact almost certainly increasing them. Yes.

Gore and his Wall Street buddies (many of the same top names behind the Credit Crisis) had positioned themselves to make Billions if not Trillions and bragged about how this new market was going to be the biggest wealth transfer. that was entirely their goal and that is why they did not care if emissions actually rose as a result of their imposed solution.
 
Thats the same mindset of countries /governments today.

Even if they KNOW there's a serious threat in the FUTURE.

Why suffer the financial cost now?
Leave that to a future regime to handle.

that is how all gov't operates.

There were reports that if the New Orleans dike system was failing and when it failed it would cost up to 1000 times more to clean up and fix then it would to just fix it.

Anyone spending their own money would fix the problem first and not risk the cost of 1000X.

But as a gov't official who spends his budget today on something like that, that is just preventative you simply get little to no recognition. And worse it buys you no votes. Better to keep the money and use it to buy votes and hope the dikes blow on someone elses watch and oh well about that 1000X cost to the citizens.
 
It's not necessarily 97 % http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
as for the energy industry, well it's giving people huge numbers of jobs all over fly over country, and tons of them would likely be unemployed otherwise. They apparently give more of a fuck about them than many of the global warming alarmists do.

Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch now. He has proven to be a shill for the energy industry.

And this article basically lies and says the 97% figure comes from one abstract survey- which isn't the truth at all.

There is a majority consensus.

"97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
 
It's interesting that I'm noticing a slow but gradual decline in the climate change denial.

It's become too embarrassing denying something backed up by so much science.

So now Plan B is to admit global warming exists, but to deny we can do ANYTHING about it. Green energy? The liberals are just trying to get rich off of that. Policy to limit certain fossil fuels? That's just the liberals expanding government. More options to private transportation? The liberals are trying to bankrupt the country.

No more climate change denial, same effect.
 
It's interesting that I'm noticing a slow but gradual decline in the climate change denial.

It's become too embarrassing denying something backed up by so much science.

So now Plan B is to admit global warming exists, but to deny we can do ANYTHING about it. Green energy? The liberals are just trying to get rich off of that. Policy to limit certain fossil fuels? That's just the liberals expanding government. More options to private transportation? The liberals are trying to bankrupt the country.

No more climate change denial, same effect.

I don't think anyone's ever argued that the climate doesn't change. It's one of the reasons why the term "Global Warming" got transformed into "Climate Change" -- if the evidence can't point to a warming trend, let alone humans as a cause of it, let's just adopt the "Climate Change" model, which is much more squishy, and push various agendas based on that.

My only questions for the climate alarmists are as follows:

1. Is the planet as warm as it's ever been?

2. What is the "correct" temperature for the planet to be?

Meanwhile, yes I'll drive an electric car. Because as we all know, electricity comes from magic.
 
This is actually a very salient topic, as there is no real consensus in the scientific community regarding the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change. Even in my department, researchers are largely divided on the topic.

Even though I am an ardent environmentalist, I don't think there is enough longitudinal data to definitely say global warming is a man made event. There is certainly evidence pointing in that direction - short term turbulence in extreme weather patterns lends credence to this position.

HOWEVER, when evaluated on a historical time scale (as in earth's history, not human history), these extreme events still do not fall outside cyclical weather/climactic patterns that have occurred naturally.

I am not a climatologist, so I cannot speak with any real authority on the subject. However, many (including my father who is a professor emeritus in earth sciences at UW) feel as though the current dialogue (both for and against global warming) is driven by popular opinion and not hard data.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out.
 
This is actually a very salient topic, as there is no real consensus in the scientific community regarding the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change. Even in my department, researchers are largely divided on the topic.

Even though I am an ardent environmentalist, I don't think there is enough longitudinal data to definitely say global warming is a man made event. There is certainly evidence pointing in that direction - short term turbulence in extreme weather patterns lends credence to this position.

HOWEVER, when evaluated on a historical time scale (as in earth's history, not human history), these extreme events still do not fall outside cyclical weather/climactic patterns that have occurred naturally.

I am not a climatologist, so I cannot speak with any real authority on the subject. However, many (including my father who is a professor emeritus in earth sciences at UW) feel as though the current dialogue (both for and against global warming) is driven by popular opinion and not hard data.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out.

I have to admit that I'm surprised by this, as I was under the impression that most climatologists believed that anthropogenic global warming is exactly what's happening. A quick google search seems to indicate there is strong support for that too:

Taken together, the very strong evidence, accumulated from thousands of
independent studies, has over the past decades convinced virtually every climatologist
around the world (many of whom were initially quite skeptical, including
myself) that anthropogenic global warming is a reality with which we need
to deal.

Source

The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming -- 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing human-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

Source

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Source

Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents.

Source
 
I have to admit that I'm surprised by this, as I was under the impression that most climatologists believed that anthropogenic global warming is exactly what's happening. A quick google search seems to indicate there is strong support for that too:



Source



Source



Source



Source

Color me equally surprised. The general sentiment among climate researchers that I have spoken with are reluctant to imply causality between human activities and global warming. At best, you could get them to admit to "it probably is, but I'm just not certain"

As noted in my original post, there is certainly a great deal of evidence to support anthropogenic climate change, but not enough to draw any definitive conclusions.

To hang your hat on a position is a pretty big declarative statement as a researcher. It leaves you very vulnerable should your position be refuted or discredited - something that the IPCC climate change researchers are well aware of (they fudged their findings and got caught with their pants down).

With all of that being said, global warming reminds me of the saying "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck". I wouldn't be surprised though that if over time, we find out that our understanding of human's influence on the climate is flipped on its head.

We thought the ozone layer was going to continue to degrade, it actually improved in the past decade. We thought that we had reached peak oil (Hubbert's peak oil theory), that was disproved.

I prefer to take a wait and see approach before I begin committing to a position.
 
This is actually a very salient topic, as there is no real consensus in the scientific community regarding the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change. Even in my department, researchers are largely divided on the topic.

Even though I am an ardent environmentalist, I don't think there is enough longitudinal data to definitely say global warming is a man made event. There is certainly evidence pointing in that direction - short term turbulence in extreme weather patterns lends credence to this position.

HOWEVER, when evaluated on a historical time scale (as in earth's history, not human history), these extreme events still do not fall outside cyclical weather/climactic patterns that have occurred naturally.

I am not a climatologist, so I cannot speak with any real authority on the subject. However, many (including my father who is a professor emeritus in earth sciences at UW) feel as though the current dialogue (both for and against global warming) is driven by popular opinion and not hard data.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out.


Please define "definitely"? Warming being anthropogenic is "very likely" according to the IPCC (over 90% chance).

Extreme weather pattern attribution is not as clear, but it is not warming.

Edit: oh, oops, it's actually "extremely likely" (over 95% chance).
 
Last edited:
It's interesting that I'm noticing a slow but gradual decline in the climate change denial.

It's become too embarrassing denying something backed up by so much science.

So now Plan B is to admit global warming exists, but to deny we can do ANYTHING about it. Green energy? The liberals are just trying to get rich off of that. Policy to limit certain fossil fuels? That's just the liberals expanding government. More options to private transportation? The liberals are trying to bankrupt the country.

No more climate change denial, same effect.
lots of strawmen in this post.

Climate always changes. If we could truly stop climate change then this planet would be f*cked. If you want to see a slow and gradual decline check out how the activists switched from 'Global Warming bad' to 'Climate change bad' so they could cover their bases no matter which way things went.

Anyone with a brain can go back to the era pre the last ice age and see it was warmer then it is today without man's intervention. If you look at a chart at climate since the last ice age to today the planet has been on a steady climb back towards those warmer temps. So the question is 'if the planet was warmer before the last ice age then it is now and the ice age was a anomaly and blip, how do we know the planets natural temps were not where they were pre ice age and no matter what man does, they are not heading back there.

The issues for most labelled 'deniers' over the Global Warming debate were:

- if it is happening is it a man made problem or can man's actions stop it
- are the solutions being proposed actually designed to address the problem or are they just a huge excuse for wealth transfer.


The last question in particular was the main undoing for support because if every country signed on to Kyoto the emissions almost certainly would have spiked massively for decades as Corporations in the first world were either forced to pay massive new taxes (buy credits) or simply transfer their production to third world countries that were they were not restricted by Kyoto and as such the cleaner less polluting corporations in the 1st world would be shutting down and sending the same production to the heavier polluting factories in the developing world.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,816
Messages
55,309,384
Members
174,732
Latest member
herrsackbauer
Back
Top