Contrarians may finally agree we are changing the climate

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

When you cling to vaguary there really is no point in discussing this with you...
1. What science do I need to learn?

vagary!?

the greenhouse effect and global warming ... after that - all you need to know is that temperature is the single biggest factor in affecting weather ... obviously not the only factor but the main one ... from there ... AGW should be straight forward ...

So if following your "science", Man is also causing global warming on other plantes? (Mars,Pluto/Jupiter)

brianlux wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Learning climate science is a bit like learning how to cook or garden. There's almost TOO MUCH information out there. Anyone who argues that we need to teach climate science here probably just doesn't really care or just likes to argue. But on the slim chance that I'm wrong about that and you really do want to learn, some good places start:

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

http://www.ucsusa.org/

http://www.realclimate.org/

These are pretty basic, reliable sites. If you do a little study and still aren't convinced that climate change is real and human caused (anthropogenic is the correct term) , maybe you never will be.

Re-reading my own post here it occurs to me that this might sound "scolding"- which it may be a bit but was not my intention. I just get very frustrated at times as we sit in this train racing towards a cliff and so many of the passengers keep insisting there is no cliff. Never-the-less, my apologies if I come across as scolding or impertinent.

I dont think you came off as scolding Brian. I think whatever side of the coin a person is on, they should read these things and not just chalk the warming trends up to coincidence... with this:

"Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation, industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the atmosphere."

Even if we're wrong about this, it cant hurt to work at (and evolve into) making better processes instead of just sitting back and taking a chance.

And I get it that there are natural warming trends -- thats about the best some folks can come up with...but this warming trend coincides a bit too much for me with our pollution in the past century.

Blockhead wrote:

So if following your "science", Man is also causing global warming on other plantes? (Mars,Pluto/Jupiter)

The climates and nature of those planets are wayyyyy different than the one here on Earth. You cannot compare those. The location of those planets and what the planet is made of is different.

polaris_x wrote:

climate science and the concept of global warming wasn't studied seriously until like 30 years ago ...

[/quote]

And this statement is at the core of my skepticism. If I think critically about it, I know that 30 years of study about the climate of a planet that is millions of years old does not mean anything at all.

I understand the climate is changing. I love the environment and want to stop pollution as much as anyone. I certainly wasn't brainwashed. I just have my doubts that scientists really understand the entire situation.

Cosmo wrote:

Okay... look.
If what Mankind has done and is doing has no affect on the changing of the climate... then, whatever pollution China is pouring into the air and water is not a factor and China can continue on this path because it is in China's best interest to mass produce goods as cheaply as possible.
...
As Americans, we don't want the world to tell us how to run our shit, right?
If that is true, who are we to tell China how to run theirs?

china is definitely the biggest polluter and a huge contributor but they are starting to recognize the impacts of their industrialization ... asia has suffered some of the more tragic consequences of global warming to date ... and now china is spending significant money on renewables ...

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

And this statement is at the core of my skepticism. If I think critically about it, I know that 30 years of study about the climate of a planet that is millions of years old does not mean anything at all.

I understand the climate is changing. I love the environment and want to stop pollution as much as anyone. I certainly wasn't brainwashed. I just have my doubts that scientists really understand the entire situation.

but have you studied the basic science and come to that conclusion or do you just say that!? ... this earth is old thing and we can't possibly understand it is like the go to play for the people who's sole purpose is to continue to keep people in the dark about global warming ...

on another note - it at least seems like people see that the climate is indeed changing ... so, now, it's really just a matter of believing the cause ... i also get that when this debate started ... many people were on the other side and it's patently hard for people to admit being wrong and so they hold out for as long as possible ...

I know basic science principles would admit that 30 years of study (of maybe 100 years of accurate data at most) is not enough to make accurate conclusions of a planet as old as ours.

But no - I have not studied the basic climate change science....although I have observed that it's not called global warming anymore and that the hole in the ozone has gone away (or at least isn't mentioned).

know1 wrote:

I know basic science principles would admit that 30 years of study (of maybe 100 years of accurate data at most) is not enough to make accurate conclusions of a planet as old as ours.

But no - I have not studied the basic climate change science....although I have observed that it's not called global warming anymore and that the hole in the ozone has gone away (or at least isn't mentioned).

the whole global warming / climate change thing is yet another fiasco ... it is global warming ... the fundamental problem we are facing is global warming ... one of the key impacts of global warming is climate change ...

i suggest you go read one of the many websites that explains global warming ... this is what i find frustrating ... people sit there in denial and yet they don't even bother to find out the facts ...

more people have died recently due to flooding in the phillipines ... insurance rates are gonna go up here in Toronto due to recent flooding ... island nations are planning full scale relocation because of rising sea levels ...

all this for a problem we can EASILY fix with absolutely very little cost ... but yet - we sit here in 2013 continuing to argue over it's existence ...

brianlux wrote:

Why would we need, say, 150 or 200 years of study when the causes of anthropogenic climate change/global warming did not exist 150 or 200 years ago? We've had plenty of time to study the affects of humans on the environment. We can continue to collect data but without taking action to reduce our impact we are only making things worse-- and exponentially so.

I think the basic idea behind those who aren't convinced is that humans had no weather studies before the effects of industrialization, so basically the testing or experimentation has no control. so the only variables we can study are those that are post-pollution, which is a biased basis for analysis.