Global Warming Discussion

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

2 things:

1) The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite (the internet inventor's propaganda film aside).

2) Yes, the things you list are clearly detrimental to the environment. I don't think anyone has argued that. It is not natural to be spewing so much CO2 into our atmosphere. So, focus on that instead of trying to convince people of your religion - global warming. Religious discussions are never productive.

1. it is overwhelming ... al gore aside ...
2. this is not religious ... your attempts to make it some cult/secret agenda is an indication that is how you perceive the issue and without anything else - that is how you choose to frame it ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

JonnyPistachio

EdsonNascimento wrote:

2 things:

1) The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isnt there overwhelming evidence that we fucked up the ozone layer and a hole resulted in more than normal amounts solar radiation coming to earth?

EdsonNascimento wrote:

(the internet inventor's propaganda film aside).

EdsonNascimento wrote:

2) Yes, the things you list are clearly detrimental to the environment. I don't think anyone has argued that. It is not natural to be spewing so much CO2 into our atmosphere. So, focus on that instead of trying to convince people of your religion - global warming. Religious discussions are never productive.

Not sure if this was directed at me or just to the general thread, but I'm not using it as religion, and I'm not trying to convince anyone. But as long as there isnt undeniable proof disproving global warming, we better bet the opposite way to protect our planet...its the least we can do.. that's my point.

gimmesometruth27

polaris_x wrote:

hey ... brian ... don't let the ignorant send you away ... i know it's disheartening when people refuse to accept the science (btw there is no proof that global warming is not anthropogenic) ... what is even sadder is that all it takes is a little reading and an open mind to realize that global warming is real ... is caused by man and has already resulted in the loss of many lives ... denial was an operative word because that is what it is ... the science IS overwhelming ... all they have are links to articles that when traced and dissected are fraudulent ...

yeah don't let the ignorant make you leave. jut realize that you aren't going to open their eyes because they are not receptive to what it is you have to say.

the motto of this place should be "everyone is right and no one is sorry. that's the start and the end of the story."

i think the only reason that huntsman is the only gop candidate that acknowledges that climate change is a problem speaks volumes. the rest of them are bought and paid for by oil lobbyists, so of course they are going to deny that man is contributing to climate change.....all you have to do is follow the money.

EdsonNascimento

Again, I will reiterate the most salient point:

I think we can all agree that spewing carbon monoxide, dioxide and other chemicals into the air is a bad idea. It's what you do with it.

Nobody is convincing anyone in the Global Warming debate. BUT, you can still get your desired outcomes by sticking to the points that there is very little disagreement on.

But, I think we also need to consider the financial and other real world ramifications of these changes. As someone pointed out, they were actually able to prove that their changes were not only environmentally friendly, but made sense business wise.

This is not to say there are not greater goods that should be served regardless of the financial impact. But, we also have to recognize those real world impacts to choose the best way to attack these issues.

For example - I'm not giving up my gas guzzler until a hybrid equivalent is financial viable for me. Maybe, that means the hybrids become more financially available in the kind of car I need (yes, need - not easy to cart around a family of 6 with sports equipment in a Volt). Maybe, it means gas prices reach a level that makes it unaffordable the other way (I don't spend nearly as much in gas as folks would make it seem). My guess is it's a combination of both.

But, putting certain restrictions on stuff makes it unaffordable to the masses. And that's the bigger problem with all this. Companies will do anything you want - if you'll pay for it. You can't expect GM to convert to all Eletric cars and not have someone (the consumer) foot the bill.

brianlux

I don't want to make this an us vs them thread but I do want to take a moment to say thank you polaris_x, gimmesometruth27 and JonnyPistachio for encouraging me not to abandon ship (again) on the global warming issue.

I'm not going to argue the fact of global warming being human caused. The fact (yes, damn it, fact) is that global warming is being exacerbated by human activity. We have changed the climate and we need to stop hiding behind our selfish unfounded doubts and do something. When the shit really hits the fan, no whining from those who deny our foolishness!

Finances and economy be damned! I'll say it again, without an environment fit for human habitat there will be no social, political or economic issues to deal with. In a world that is heating up at the rate it is, most of your children and grandchildren will DIE. Yeah, maybe anyone 35 or older will squeak by but how selfish are we!

One last bit of encouragement- if you aren't well read on this subject, please become so. The evidence is clear, it's there to read and understand and our responsibility is to do something and don't tell me I don't. Don't tell me I just come here and rant. I make conscious efforts to do something everyday to help slow global warming so your kids (and my extended family- I have not reproduced) will have an inkling of a chance.

Please, HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

EdsonNascimento

So, if we don't agree with you, we aren't well read.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, if we don't agree with you, we aren't well read.

in this particular case ... yes ... see my earlier post ...

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

i am pretty sure that if i press you for proof that global warming isn't anthropogenic ... you will link me either tk an op/ed or a "scientific" article that was published by some geologist or physicist funded by oil and/or conservative think tanks ... we've been discussing this topic for years on this board and this has held true for every person who shares your view ...

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, if we don't agree with you, we aren't well read.

in this particular case ... yes ... see my earlier post ...

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

i am pretty sure that if i press you for proof that global warming isn't anthropogenic ... you will link me either tk an op/ed or a "scientific" article that was published by some geologist or physicist funded by oil and/or conservative think tanks ... we've been discussing this topic for years on this board and this has held true for every person who shares your view ...

Thank you for helping my point.

I do agree - the Earth is in it's warming phase. If I cared to, I could dig up articles from 30 years ago saying we were heading for an ice age. That's why the proper terminology you should be using is Climate Change. That way, you're correct in either direction.

Today was warmer than yesterday.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Thank you for helping my point.

I do agree - the Earth is in it's warming phase. If I cared to, I could dig up articles from 30 years ago saying we were heading for an ice age. That's why the proper terminology you should be using is Climate Change. That way, you're correct in either direction.

Today was warmer than yesterday.

seriously, this global cooling thing from 30 years ago was by a few scientists ... there was nowhere close to the scientific consensus we are at now ... it's unfortunate you would use such a ploy ...

i see you choose to not discuss the overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community ...

also, global warming is the correct terminology ... if you were better read on the subject, you would know that ...

climate change is the consequence of global warming ... climate change is the biggest impact of global warming but not the only one ...

bigdvs

You need a better argument then "the source of funding was bias to begin with" to discredit science that calls the theory you believe in into question.

Last I checked in on this topic it was not Exxon,Koch or some right wing nut jobs that made Hockeystick Temperature Graphs, fudged temperature data to hide the decline (Climategate) or forced prominent Nobel winning scientists to resign posts over differences with the pro-AGW community.

JonnyPistachio

JonnyPistachio wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

2 things:

1) The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isnt there overwhelming evidence that we fucked up the ozone layer and a hole resulted in more than normal amounts solar radiation coming to earth?

still curious about this^^. I honestly just don't know.. Is this considered a factor in theories on global warming?

polaris_x

JonnyPistachio wrote:

still curious about this^^. I honestly just don't know.. Is this considered a factor in theories on global warming?

we did fuck up the ozone layer ... a corresponding ban on cfc's helped in that regard however, it has just been reported that there is a big hole in the ozone layer over the arctic ...

bigdvs

johnny,

I checked when you asked earlier, it seems in the late 90's the trend of the thinning of the ozone layer at the poles actually reversed itself for a short time (no accepted explination available), but then I also found an article just this week claiming that polar ice was going to be significantly greater this year due to loss of heat out of the holes in the ozone layer. So yeah um I don't really know either way.

polaris_x

bigdvs wrote:

You need a better argument then "the source of funding was bias to begin with" to discredit science that calls the theory you believe in into question.

Last I checked in on this topic it was not Exxon,Koch or some right wing nut jobs that made Hockeystick Temperature Graphs, fudged temperature data to hide the decline (Climategate) or forced prominent Nobel winning scientists to resign posts over differences with the pro-AGW community.

i do? ... why? ... those "articles" are not peer reviewed and have been labeled by the community as junk science ...

all your talking points have been addressed - you need to stop accepting everything the right wing PR machine feeds you as truth and think critically ... and i say that with anything you read ... even stuff from what you call a leftist source ...

as for the nobel scientist - you do know he did not get his nobel prize for climate research!? ... and that he does get a majority of his funding from oil companies ... i know you've already indicated that doesn't bother you ... but it's still a factor ...

learn to think critically people ... focus on the facts and decide for yourself ...

Idris

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 190937.htm

bigdvs

polaris_x wrote:

i do? ... why? ... those "articles" are not peer reviewed and have been labeled by the community as junk science ...

all your talking points have been addressed - you need to stop accepting everything the right wing PR machine feeds you as truth and think critically ... and i say that with anything you read ... even stuff from what you call a leftist source ...

as for the nobel scientist - you do know he did not get his nobel prize for climate research!? ... and that he does get a majority of his funding from oil companies ... i know you've already indicated that doesn't bother you ... but it's still a factor ...

learn to think critically people ... focus on the facts and decide for yourself ...

Okay well discuss it then, there are scientists (not sponsored by right wing PR machine) that rail against the peer review process in the Climate Science journals that claim any science no matter how benign the results are gets spiked if the preception is that it hurts the public image of AGW. You can not hide behind only peer reviewed science if your peer review process has become politicized and is no longer willing to be scientific and entertain questions and challenges to its theories. Where is the scientist who wants to question AGW to go to get published if his own industry for politcal reasons silences his discension?

polaris_x

bigdvs wrote:

Okay well discuss it then, there are scientists (not sponsored by right wing PR machine) that rail against the peer review process in the Climate Science journals that claim any science no matter how benign the results are gets spiked if the preception is that it hurts the public image of AGW. You can not hide behind only peer reviewed science if your peer review process has become politicized and is no longer willing to be scientific and entertain questions and challenges to its theories. Where is the scientist who wants to question AGW to go to get published if his own industry for politcal reasons silences his discension?

this is the thing ... if you are a scientist and you don't believe in AGW ... you basically have a finite amount of resources ... so, funding won't be an issue for you ... secondly, if you produce a legitimate piece of science - there are many journals that will peer review it objectively ... the list of associations i posted earlier are tied to numerous facets of science not just climate research ... getting it peer-reviewed objectively is not going to be a problem ...

you don't need to be a phd nor a scientist to understand global warming ... the scientists are really now just trying to sort out the impacts ... the foundation/science is pretty straight forward ... all you have to do is read the basic pieces of information and think for yourself ...

bigdvs

oh I understand the theory, and I understand its acceptance but that does not make any contest to it junk science and does not justify the majority of publications that currently disallow evidence that would blow shotgun sized holes in the tenets of the AGW foundation. At this point we only get drips and draps around the peer review process by those frustrated with the process that sell their science to corporations and political interests. If the science is a solid as it seems to be, then let all questions be asked, answered and analyzed fairly.

polaris_x

bigdvs wrote:

oh I understand the theory, and I understand its acceptance but that does not make any contest to it junk science and does not justify the majority of publications that currently disallow evidence that would blow shotgun sized holes in the tenets of the AGW foundation. At this point we only get drips and draps around the peer review process by those frustrated with the process that sell their science to corporations and political interests. If the science is a solid as it seems to be, then let all questions be asked, answered and analyzed fairly.

if you understand the theory - then what is your concern? what don't you agree with?

please point me to someone who has legit science that is getting disallowed ...

edit: i find it hard to believe there are scientists who can disprove AGW who aren't being heard ... right now, the only thing that is preventing AGW from becoming a widely accepted fact is the actions of PR firms and special interest lobbyists who have waged a PR campaign ... knowing this, any scientist who can blow a hole in AGW is gonna basically have access to millions of dollars and all the lawyers he/she could dream of to get his/her science out there ... the reason why the PR campaign has been dotted with the same rhetoric over the years is simply because the counter-argument just isn't there ...

have you read the book "trust us, we're experts" ... great insight into PR firms and how corporate agendas are achieved ...

bigdvs

actually have not read it, but are you saying that there has been no PR for AGW, no money, no lobbying, no fraudlent half science politicalization of the facts?