Climate Change Skeptics

12467

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    for the most part - yes

    Why?
    as for decrease - i'm not exactly sure ... they have models ..

    Yes, they do have models. Those models aren't singular -- there is much disagreement among them, depending on whose model you examine.

    I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm simply a skeptic when it comes to people who want to make definitive proclamations based on a lot of conjecture and assumption -- such behavior is always suspect. I think, at this point, there's little doubt that the climate is warming and that some portion of that warming is influenced by the activities of man. But it horrifies me that people are already proposing solutions without understanding the problem's extent and even its fundamental nature.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Hmm ... Honestly, its a bit hard to say. Perhaps anything we do should count as part of the natural cycle.

    I'm unsure how you could ever count something we do as outside a natural cycle.
    Perhaps even if we do reduce emissions of methane, carbon dioxide, etc., the globe will still get warmer. Most current evidence suggests that we can slow the warming process by cleaning up our acts a bit, and to me, its worth a try. I dunno. Maybe Al Gore scared me more than he should have. IMHO, reducing emissions won't likely hurt us, and will quite likely help us, assuming that we do so in an economically sensible way. Anyhow, I don't want to be preachy. You raise good questions ... Not sure they can really be answered at this stage.

    I completely agree here. Reducing emissions is likely a very wise goal for humanity. However, pretending that actions toward that goal comprise a solution to a problem not completely defined does not seem terribly wise.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Why?



    Yes, they do have models. Those models aren't singular -- there is much disagreement among them, depending on whose model you examine.

    I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm simply a skeptic when it comes to people who want to make definitive proclamations based on a lot of conjecture and assumption -- such behavior is always suspect. I think, at this point, there's little doubt that the climate is warming and that some portion of that warming is influenced by the activities of man. But it horrifies me that people are already proposing solutions without understanding the problem's extent and even its fundamental nature.

    because driving cars is not part of the natural cycle ...

    not everyone who smokes will get cancer ... but we tell people not to also ... just because we can't definitely determine every impact in every detail does not take away from our need to act ...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I think one of the best things that can happen is ridding the US and world with coal burning power plants. then of course we would need to use nuclear plants but then you run into the "not in my backyard" syndrome.
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I think one of the best things that can happen is ridding the US and world with coal burning power plants. then of course we would need to use nuclear plants but then you run into the "not in my backyard" syndrome.

    what is another option then?

    conservation could cut down the need for energy tremendously,...
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    sonicreducer wrote:
    what is another option then?
    other then nuclear plants? I dont know
    sonicreducer wrote:
    conservation could cut down the need for energy tremendously,...
    "tremendously" is a relative term. with world population approaching 7 billion, the need to energy and alot of it isnt going anywhere
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    jlew24asu wrote:
    other then nuclear plants? I dont know

    me either
    jlew24asu wrote:
    "tremendously" is a relative term. with world population approaching 7 billion, the need to energy and alot of it isnt going anywhere

    conservation is the first step, though. we haven't made a 'big' decision to change yet.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I think one of the best things that can happen is ridding the US and world with coal burning power plants. then of course we would need to use nuclear plants but then you run into the "not in my backyard" syndrome.

    nuclear power plants produce a incredible amounts of heat. then you have the problem of what to do with the waste.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    because driving cars is not part of the natural cycle ...

    That's circular logic. Why is driving cars not part of the natural cycle?
    not everyone who smokes will get cancer ... but we tell people not to also ...just because we can't definitely determine every impact in every detail does not take away from our need to act ...

    No, it doesn't. What is does take away from is the intelligence behind your actions.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    Commy wrote:
    sounds great in theory, but in practice the example i mentioned earlier happens to be the reality. The reason i mentioned small towns is people tend to make less money, and therefore go to places where the product is cheapest, places like wal-mart. Even if that means their buddies' store wil go out of business, simply because they can't afford to spend the extra buck buying from local businesses. So wal-mart or whatever steps in, creates the monopoly, and people end up paying more anyway. And dozens of local businesses dry up.
    Funny how those same people could afford what they needed before Wal-Mart came to town. Those consumers made their choice that they care more about having more than they do their neighbour. And this is somehow blamed on Wal-Mart. Amamzing.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    onelongsong wrote:
    nuclear power plants produce a incredible amounts of heat. then you have the problem of what to do with the waste.


    alot of heat? so what. yea waste is a problem. but coal burning plants are by far the largest contributor to greenhouse gases.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    That's circular logic. Why is driving cars not part of the natural cycle?



    No, it doesn't. What is does take away from is the intelligence behind your actions.

    because cars do not exist in nature

    we can easily say the same things about many household products that contain known carcinogens ... not everyone is gonna get cancer but we've upped the likelihood ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    because cars do not exist in nature

    Huh? Where do they exist then?
    we can easily say the same things about many household products that contain known carcinogens ... not everyone is gonna get cancer but we've upped the likelihood ...

    But here's the thing -- you already can link an absence of carcinogens to a relative absence of cancer. Unfortunately, you can't say the same thing about greenhouse gasses and the symptoms of global warming. That's really the heart of my question: if you eliminate carcinogens, you decrease your likelihood of cancer, but if you eliminate cars and the like, you can't even definitively say you've decreased your likelihood of being subject to those symptoms.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Huh? Where do they exist then?



    But here's the thing -- you already can link an absence of carcinogens to a relative absence of cancer. Unfortunately, you can't say the same thing about greenhouse gasses and the symptoms of global warming. That's really the heart of my question: if you eliminate carcinogens, you decrease your likelihood of cancer, but if you eliminate cars and the like, you can't even definitively say you've decreased your likelihood of being subject to those symptoms.

    artificially created by man ...

    yes you can ... the doubt is in the exact impact we are trying to mitigate ... if we reduce greenhouse gases - we will reduce the greenhouse effect and in doing so will be reducing our affect on global weather patterns ...
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    artificially created by man ...
    Can something made by man be counted as artificial? We are only acting as nature designed us. How can we do the unnatural or artificial?

    These are probably more philosophical questions though than scientific.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    artificially created by man ...

    And how do man's creations exist outside of nature?
    yes you can ... the doubt is in the exact impact we are trying to mitigate ... if we reduce greenhouse gases - we will reduce the greenhouse effect and in doing so will be reducing our affect on global weather patterns ...

    No we won't. We'll simply be affecting those global weather patterns in a different direction, to exactly the same extent. It's like taking the weight off of one side of the scale and putting it on the other -- you haven't lessened your affect on the scale.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    Can something made by man be counted as artificial? We are only acting as nature designed us. How can we do the unnatural or artificial?

    These are probably more philosophical questions though than scientific.

    then we wouldn't need the word "artificial"
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    then we wouldn't need the word "artificial"

    The word "artificial" effectively means "by the hand of man". It's root meaning has nothing to do with "outside of nature".

    A car is certainly "artificial" in the sense that it is built by a man. But man was built by nature, and I have a hard time believing that the chain here somehow goes "outside of nature".
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    And how do man's creations exist outside of nature?



    No we won't. We'll simply be affecting those global weather patterns in a different direction, to exactly the same extent. It's like taking the weight off of one side of the scale and putting it on the other -- you haven't lessened your affect on the scale.

    now we're getting into the thing with surferdude ...

    no ... imagine it like your body - if i change the o2 concentration in the air you breathe - your body will attempt to adapt to it as best as possible ... if we get to the point where that concentration is not adaptable - your body will break ... so, let's say we try after changing that concentration to get it close to what it is normally - u will see that your body will have to adapt but more in line with the various systems ...
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    then we wouldn't need the word "artificial"
    Well I don't think we do need it.

    Man can only act naturally, what we create is then natural and is just as much a normal part of nature as anything not made by man.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley

Categories