Must See For Climate Change Skeptics

polaris_x wrote:

311jj wrote:

I disagree with the closer to 100%. Do you understand how many different factors and their magnitude go into the warming of the earth? The effect of humans is such a small part of it. This is agreed upon by many climate researchers. They just conclude that our effect, which is growing, is enough to tip the balances.

I'm not saying that we should do nothing. We need to be much more responsible, especially the developed countries, with the US carrying most of the responsibility. But to say that humans are the largest cause for the warming of the earth is not justifiable when other factors like the sun, earth's orbit, the oceans, etc. are much larger contributing factors.

i humbly suggest you do what shadowcast did and read up some more ... your response is like standard talking point #5 of climate change deniers and has been addressed by the science a long time ago ...

try considering the earth like a human body ... we have a fluctuating body temperature that when things are good is generally around a certain temperature ... how our internal body regulates that temperature is indeed very complex however, when we have a fever ... we can usually account for it such as infection or what not ...

the earth has been running a fever for a very long time now

Your response is standard talking point #1 of climate change fanatics, I'm smarter than you so I'm right so do some research and then you'll be as smart as me and agree with me.

Guess what, I've done plenty of research, had plenty of discussions with very intelligent people(environmental engineers, physicists, geologists, geophysicists, etc) and that is how I got to where I'm at.

inlet13 wrote:

So, in the end, I think that if we can change the climate (formerly Global Warming), who's to say we can not change it back? No one can predict the future. Maybe, if there are ways to harming the climate, there are also ways to heal it. This healing ability could exist just as much as the harming ability.

Maybe. But you're not backing that up with anything other than vague speculation. Whereas, maybe, what would be an infinitely more rational and responsible course of action, when there is significant and multi-faceted empirical evidence suggesting a correlation between the astronomical and ever-growing scale of human-generated and climate changes, would be to use the technologies we have at our disposal to prevent it from changing in the first place, if and while we still can.

inlet13 wrote:

I do think some, actually a majority of climate change believers are using this issue to push their political/economic ideologies.

... as opposed to the lobbyists for grotesquely rich and exploitative oil companies, who are among both the worst polluters and the loudest deniers climate change (coincidentally, I'm sure, and nothing to do with the fact that action on global warming threatens to cost them their ill-gotten trillions)

inlet13 wrote:

This is not good at all and I, for one, see though it. Some use Climate Change as a movement towards more government control.

...which is so much worse than increased conflict, mass displacement of people living in extremely flood-prone areas such as Bangladesh, reductions in the availability of potable water and food, particularly and disproportionately amongst the poorest, those who are already the most food- and water-insecure populations. Yeah, it's more government control that's the real worry, right? :roll:

Taking individual, current events and using them to "prove" climate change (or whatever they're calling it these days) simply doesn't work. You can't use singular events (or even just a few events) to prove anything. The fact that someone would even think you could casts immense doubt on their own ability to comprehend the "science".

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

Taking individual, current events and using them to "prove" climate change (or whatever they're calling it these days) simply doesn't work. You can't use singular events (or even just a few events) to prove anything. The fact that someone would even think you could casts immense doubt on their own ability to comprehend the "science".

what!??

this is akin to saying ... showing lung cancer on a 2 pack a day smoker is not proof that there is a correlation and anyone who tries to do so is showing poor judgement ...

do you have a science background?

It's more like seeing a couple of hairs in the sink and stating conclusively that I'm undergoing chemotherapy.

Humans have a couple of hundred years of accurate records at the very very most. How can we possibly have any idea what is normal for the earth?

It's just downright ridiculous to use 2 tornados as concrete proof of climate change. It's kind of sad to think there are people who do think that way.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i think it has been a little more than two tornados.

melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.

over what timeframe are we talking about here? you know mans existence has been but a blip on the radar, so while ive never discounted global warming as a natural part of earths life cycle, i have to question mankinds spazz outs in regards to climate change. do we think climate has been consistent during earths lifespan? and what exactly is climate change? can you tell me without drowning me in links? you speak of long term droughts where there have previously been no droughts. i live in australia and let me tell you droughts are a way of life here. when is that one day when we see the situation as dire??? i have said in the past and will continue to maintain that what is at stake here is not the death of our planet but the exitinction of humans.. and THAT in my opinion is what is the greater fear here. humans have become so comforatble in their own arrogance as the supreme being on this planet that the thought that we may well make ourselves existinct is simply unfathomable.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i think it has been a little more than two tornados.

melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.

Care to do a little research into the increase of ocean temperatures and how they are measured?
Actually Ill just do that for you.
1) Prior to 1940 - Records collected from ships that used the "bucket method." Which is quite simple, throw a bucket overboard, pull it up and stick a thermometer in it.

2) Post 1940 (approx) - measurements were taken directly via intakes on the ship.

3) Post 1980 - RSS, or satellite data, became available.

So three sets of measurements, all collected differently and each with their own idiosyncrasies. Method 1 is, well, a joke. Method 2 is much more reliable, however, depth of the intakes/sensors is not controlled and can vary significantly by ship design and weight of cargo. Method 3 only measures the first few centimeters of the surface. Obviously, the sun, wind and other factors have a significant effect on those readings.

One problem shared by one and two is that measurements were only taken from standard shipping lanes and therefore represent a very, very small percentage of sea area.
It appears that 2/3 of the average global temp was collected by very inconsistent and unreliable means and, IMO, begets more questions than answers. How could you follow something so blindly?

I have a few questions for people who understand this issue better than I do:

1) When was it first suspected that man is playing a major role in changing the climate of the earth?

2) How large is the sample set for collecting data to prove or disprove that man is at least partly responsible for climate change? How old is climate science? How accurate is it when it first began? How much has the instrumentation improved since it began?