Global warming my A$$!!!!

[ettubrute]

In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo have little discernible impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

We are also cutting down forests at an alarming rate and that is adding to the problem. Believing we are not causing the planet to warm only serves to make people feel good. There is no doubt humans have destroyed the natural balance of the planet with our pollution and destruction of forests.

+1

 

[mcryan]

Yeah global warming... haven't seen much of it myself.

 

[Morgoth]

How exactly can one be pro-science, while denying the mountains of scientific evidence on a particular subject?

odd I know a few geologist who disagree with the interpretation of the evidence

yes global warming exists, humans aren't exactly helping the cause, but it is also happening with or without us and we all know politicians exploit this to get votes and money.

 

[killadoob]

odd I know a few geologist who disagree with the interpretation of the evidence

yes global warming exists, humans aren't exactly helping the cause, but it is also happening with or without us and we all know politicians exploit this to get votes and money.

Wait what is happening without us? What is putting 100-200x more c02 into the atmosphere than every volcano on the planet? What is cutting down forests at an alarming rate? Dude we are putting loads of c02 into the atmosphere, destroying the forest and basically rendering the natural balance of this planet useless. If it makes you feel better to think our pollution is not causing harm to the planet then good for you.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/5-deadliest-effects-of-global-warming/276

Interesting, the part about the ice caps reflecting the sun is the most dangerous part i reckon. Imagine how hot it will get with nothing reflecting the sun's rays maybe by then we would have developed something to counter the missing ice caps.

 

[Morgoth]

Wait what is happening without us? What is putting 100-200x more c02 into the atmosphere than every volcano on the planet? What is cutting down forests at an alarming rate? Dude we are putting loads of c02 into the atmosphere, destroying the forest and basically rendering the natural balance of this planet useless. If it makes you feel better to think our pollution is not causing harm to the planet then good for you.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/5-deadliest-effects-of-global-warming/276

Interesting, the part about the ice caps reflecting the sun is the most dangerous part i reckon. Imagine how hot it will get with nothing reflecting the sun's rays maybe by then we would have developed something to counter the missing ice caps.

so what, eventually the volcanoes will reach that level, and sorry but I don't buy the 100-200x more co2 thing, its pure sensationalism, there are tons of volcanoes erupting everyday (hotspots), thousands of light earthquakes, all of them erupting loads of co2 and co gasses, but all in all, it has been proven by nature that species eventually come to a point where they die out, either by killing themselves or because other species killed them,

so at the end, why is it relevant at all? Why should I give a damm?

 

[Ancalagon]

Or the "suspicious" global consipracy that all the climate scientists are in on...

See this is what I most have a problem with. Where, exactly, do I say that there is a global conspiracy? Give up yet? The answer is nowhere.

There isnt a global conspiracy. What there is, is two things:

1. A select few elite people are getting massively rich from propagating fear of climate change, real or imagined. But this is nothing new, there are always a few rich people getting richer from various schemes. The important point is that, for some, climate change is not an opportunity for the entire human population to change its ways as much as it is a chance to buy that third private island. You know, for when 2 isnt enough.
2. Everyone else is being influenced by a mania spread through the media and by word of mouth that makes the actual science behind climate change difficult to debate constructively. Everytime anyone questions climate change, no matter how good their criticisms are, they are either A) called lunatics or B) called right wing conservative idiots who want to cut down all of the rainforests and replace them with shopping malls. Or both sometimes. Your post illustrates just that. I dont mention a global conspiracy, but you seem fit to put words in my mouth, indeed, into every skeptics mouth.

The reality is, climate change is happening. And I think it would be foolish to assume that humans have no effect on the climate. We do have an effect. The point is, where that effect is not known, its overestimated. The statistics that are used to calculate its possible effects have been criticized - heck even the recent report on the CRU says they should have consulted with statisticians and used better statistical methods - and yet these stats are used to formulate policies with global effects. Yet if we question the stats, instead of scientists we become "deniers of the worst sort".

Look at the recent book, Superfreakonomics. Its authors included a chapter that looked at some of the mathematics and statistics behind global warming. They didnt say it was all a hoax or conspiracy, they just looked at some of the stats used. And you should see the personal attacks these guys received, its outrageous! Thats when you know something isnt right, that instead of looking at the science impartially, people have a preconceived agenda.

 

[Morgoth]

exactly, the theory and data is set, the interpretations sucks

 

[BCO]

See this is what I most have a problem with. Where, exactly, do I say that there is a global conspiracy? Give up yet? The answer is nowhere.

There isnt a global conspiracy. What there is, is two things:

1. A select few elite people are getting massively rich from propagating fear of climate change, real or imagined. But this is nothing new, there are always a few rich people getting richer from various schemes. The important point is that, for some, climate change is not an opportunity for the entire human population to change its ways as much as it is a chance to buy that third private island. You know, for when 2 isnt enough.

The renewable energy industry is much much smaller than the fossil fuel industry. There's a lot more money to be made by carrying on with business as usual, which results in a lot of deliberate misinformation on GW being produced by "think tanks" and advocacy groups. Do a little research into Exxon-Mobil's funding on this matter. On the contrary, I'd like you to provide some (any) evidence that wind turbine or solar panel manufacturers (or even carbon trading companies) are funding research. I can think Pachauri, that's about it.

2. Everyone else is being influenced by a mania spread through the media and by word of mouth that makes the actual science behind climate change difficult to debate constructively. Everytime anyone questions climate change, no matter how good their criticisms are, they are either A) called lunatics or B) called right wing conservative idiots who want to cut down all of the rainforests and replace them with shopping malls. Or both sometimes. Your post illustrates just that. I dont mention a global conspiracy, but you seem fit to put words in my mouth, indeed, into every skeptics mouth.

Show me the science that better explains current climate change than the mainstream theory. Nobody's saying the current science is perfect, merely pointing out that the skeptics' tactic of pointing out supposed flaws in the mainstream theory without actually providing any better theories themselves is not satisfactory.

The reality is, climate change is happening. And I think it would be foolish to assume that humans have no effect on the climate. We do have an effect. The point is, where that effect is not known, its overestimated. The statistics that are used to calculate its possible effects have been criticized - heck even the recent report on the CRU says they should have consulted with statisticians and used better statistical methods - and yet these stats are used to formulate policies with global effects. Yet if we question the stats, instead of scientists we become "deniers of the worst sort".

As above, yes there's room for improvement in the current science. Nobody's denying that. Again - where's the theory that better explains current warming?

Look at the recent book, Superfreakonomics. Its authors included a chapter that looked at some of the mathematics and statistics behind global warming. They didnt say it was all a hoax or conspiracy, they just looked at some of the stats used. And you should see the personal attacks these guys received, its outrageous! Thats when you know something isnt right, that instead of looking at the science impartially, people have a preconceived agenda.

Superfreakonomics is seriously flawed in their examination of GW. Do some reading on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperFreakonomics
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_superfreakon.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...rming_contrarians/book-superfreakonomics.html

Also, climate scientists have also received a number of death threats, just ask Phil Jones or Jim Hansen.

 

[Ancalagon]

The renewable energy industry is much much smaller than the fossil fuel industry. There's a lot more money to be made by carrying on with business as usual, which results in a lot of deliberate misinformation on GW being produced by "think tanks" and advocacy groups. Do a little research into Exxon-Mobil's funding on this matter. On the contrary, I'd like you to provide some (any) evidence that wind turbine or solar panel manufacturers (or even carbon trading companies) are funding research. I can think Pachauri, that's about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Do you think there is any money to be made there? Such a market would not even exist without this scare. And yes, someone will find a way to profit from it, and profit big.

Show me the science that better explains current climate change than the mainstream theory. Nobody's saying the current science is perfect, merely pointing out that the skeptics' tactic of pointing out supposed flaws in the mainstream theory without actually providing any better theories themselves is not satisfactory.

Again you mischaracterize my position. Did you read my post or just assume I said "GLOBAL WARMING IS TEH LIES K THX BYE"? I have to ask, because pointing out criticisms in an existing theory is not the same as proposing a new theory. There have been mathematical and statistical errors in climate science, and these need to be addressed before we can formulate meaningful policies from them.

As above, yes there's room for improvement in the current science. Nobody's denying that. Again - where's the theory that better explains current warming?

Another strawman. What part of
"The reality is, climate change is happening. And I think it would be foolish to assume that humans have no effect on the climate." (from my last post)
didnt you understand?

Superfreakonomics is seriously flawed in their examination of GW. Do some reading on the subject.

So it is. I didnt know that. What about some people's reaction to Stephen McIntyre though? And how about this? Read the blog entry for a description of what happens when a newspaper dares to be impartial.

Also, climate scientists have also received a number of death threats, just ask Phil Jones or Jim Hansen.

That makes it all okay then? Its okay if climate change... uh believers... attack skeptics because Phil Jones gets death threats? Really? Okay then....

 

[DJ...]

Can we not just resurrect the 150 page thread on this exact subject? BCO, you know which one I'm talking about...

 

[BCO]

Can we not just resurrect the 150 page thread on this exact subject? BCO, you know which one I'm talking about...

Yeah. This has been discussed ad nauseum before. The same old warhorses keep getting trotted out though.

 

[BCO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Do you think there is any money to be made there? Such a market would not even exist without this scare. And yes, someone will find a way to profit from it, and profit big.

I think there's plenty of money to be made there. Notwithstanding, 7 out of the top 10 companies in the world are oil and gas companies. The argument that the science is being affected by vested interests is actually a lot more compelling when talking about global warming skepticism. There is a lot of documented evidence that there is direct funding of "skeptical" "research" by oil companies.

Again you mischaracterize my position. Did you read my post or just assume I said "GLOBAL WARMING IS TEH LIES K THX BYE"? I have to ask, because pointing out criticisms in an existing theory is not the same as proposing a new theory. There have been mathematical and statistical errors in climate science, and these need to be addressed before we can formulate meaningful policies from them.

You said this:

there is mountains of conflicting evidence, and evidence that those making the claims were politically motivated?

I am still asking where these "mountains of conflicting evidence" are and I'm asking for proof of political motivation behind the mainstream science. You seem unwilling or unable to provide either.

Another strawman. What part of
"The reality is, climate change is happening. And I think it would be foolish to assume that humans have no effect on the climate." (from my last post)


didnt you understand?

Again - I'm just asking you to back up your claim about mountains of conflicting evidence. You stated an opinion - that humans play some part in GW, but that the mainstream science overstates this - and I'm asking you to support that opinion with evidence.

So it is. I didnt know that. What about some people's reaction to Stephen McIntyre though? And how about this? Read the blog entry for a description of what happens when a newspaper dares to be impartial.

People react strongly to McIntyre because he harasses scientists for information that is already in the public domain and he distorts and misuses their data when it is made available. He is not a qualified climate scientist and he has only 1 published paper (IIRC) that was heavily criticised and solidly debunked. Lets not even go into James Delingpole's blog entry - anyone who is a self described "libertarian conservative" and the author of How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History, and Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work has very obviously decided on his ideological standpoint and has no interest in science. I read the Guardian criticsims on Realclimate a few weeks ago, as well as a lot of the comments and there's definitely nothing in there that can be called "festering, cannibalistic, backbiting" or "eco-loony". It was a series of articles writtern by respected climate scientists addressing the shortcomings of The Guardian's articles.

That makes it all okay then? Its okay if climate change... uh believers... attack skeptics because Phil Jones gets death threats? Really? Okay then....

I never condoned personal attacks - was just illustrating that mainstream scientists are attacked as well, not just "skeptics". Frankly, I consider the theft and subsequent publicisation of private CRU emails to be the worst "attack" so far on either side of this debate. It still doesn't excuse any threats to Levitt or McIntyre or whoever.