Scientists agree: Global warming is real, it’s happening more rapidly now, and we don’t know when it will peak or if there is a tipping point beyond which we can’t stop it.The uninformed agree: It’s all about Al Gore
From the denialists it’s SSND. The science is strong and unequivocal at this point: human-driven global climate change is real. And doing nothing about it, just shows how collectively stupid we really are.
.
As a species we have the misfortune of being intellectually and technologically advanced enough to wreak havoc with the environment that supports us, but nonetheless retain evolutionarily ancient emotional shortsightedness about understanding and accepting the need to act collectively in our common interest.
Dassman pointed out that humans had changed the climate in the Mediterranean area (warming) and in northern Europe (cooling) by human activity- he did call it CLIMATE CHANGE— in the mid- 1950’s!!! He also noted the desertification of north Africa had increased, as had vegetation in southern Europe. Pointing out the biological, not just “weather” impacts. Humans in ever increasing numbers, with increasing “technology” were the problem at the time, not the cure. Today, “profit” drives corporate decisions counter to the public need, but the propaganda machine has a lot better funding on the side of denial for profit, than promoting for posterity.
Once again, the comments demonstrate an inability for there to be rational discussion. Anyone who disagrees cannot just disagree, but either must be an uneducated hick (of course, I take offense at the insinuation that people with non-middle American accents are uneducated) OR they must be a blind Al-Gore worshipping liberal.
Craig, how do you know the “science is strong and unequivocal”? And Don, how do you know that “it’s over”? I’m afraid most Americans’ opinions depend on what news they choose to watch rather than what science they’ve read.
I’m willing to say I don’t know if global warming is happening or not and, assuming it is, if humans are the primary cause. But long before the global warming discussion, I thought polluting the air and land and our insatiable appetite for energy (including Al Gore’s own home) are obscene. No need for global warming to tell us current trends are not sustainable.
If human-caused global warming is real, then the only thing we can do about it is try to reduce pollution.Why are the deniers so against reducing pollution?
I keep asking whenever a stupid “Man Made Climate Change/Global Warming” cartoon shows up, and no one can ever seem to answer it. IF man was the cause of global warming because of burning fossil fuels, and thus causes such extreme weather disasters, then HOW do they explain similar and sometimes WORSE disasters in history by nature BEFORE man started burning fossil fuels? Iowa was once a supposed ice glacier….how then did it melt into what we know it now who knows how many CENTURYS ago if man wasn’t causing “Global Warming”?….hmmmm, could it be NATURAL cycles of the Earth by the cause of the SUN which is NOT in MAN’S control??
Earth’s climate has, is and will continue changing – for the next few billion years. Until the Sun implodes. Man’s activity such as deforestation, have an effect on the climate. Man’s production of CO2 as being a MAJOR factor in global climate change = hoax of the highest order.
Yup, exactly why the overwhelming majority of scientists now agree that they were wrong on the Global Warming issue and that they do not have sufficient data to make the case for global warming. The smart ones were saying that all along but no one wanted to listen….Urban sprawl in 3rd world countries does more damage to the environment than the the US does by simply removing the ecosystem for civilization to grow.
The real problem is that the corporations behind the “denier movement” have an adequate supply of Americans who find a light switch an “intellectual challenge” and the education of an earthworm.
@CanuckBecause you’ve made up your mind despite evidence. Thus, you’re unable to reason with. I don’t want the Earth trashed no more than anyone else. I don’t go out of my way to care less. But you will not be persuaded by that either. Just when your types can’t arugue anymore you throw insults. So, ultimately, there is no point to reason with your types.
Harley, the only response we have to man-made global warming is to reduce pollution. You are against that. You are therefore pro-pollution. If you aren’t pro-pollution, then it should make zero difference to you whether or not global warming is caused by man…which is obviously not the case, since you devote so much effort denying the evidence.
Those of us who have been convinced that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) exists, have been citing facts and sources rather than snide remarks and obvious points. (My favorite site: www.realclimate.org). Scores of scientific associations all around the world have committed to the truth of global warming.AGW doesn’t mean that the Earth didn’t have climate shifts in the past, it just means that this one seems to be due to our influence. Nor does it mean this is a catastrophe for all life on Earth, but it can and will be catastrophic for our civilization if we don’t work on it. Some of the factors (and CO2 is NOT the only factor, just a critical one for a lot of reasons) will be extremely hard to undo without some form of active effort.
Science Lesson.I have repeatedly suggested people actually look at the data. The Climate changers say, ‘The Scientists say it’s true, and no one else can possibly understand the science.’ The Deniers say, ’Don’t show me any data, I know it’s not true.’There are so-called areas of science where charlatans have taken control and make sure that no real scientists are allowed to penetrate the field.So saying ‘All Scientists is this field say …’ is NOT a valid argument. When the field releases all data and says, ‘Look for yourself,’ then and only then does it look like real science. And the Climate Change people HAVE released all data.But there are problems with the data. The biggest is scalarisation of vectors. The Arctic is definitely warming. The rest of the world may or may not be warming. But the world average, given the warming of the Arctic, is definitely warming.Outside the Arctic, cities are much warmer, but cities have heating and cooling raising the temperature around the old temperature station. Villages are about the same temperature over the last century. But the average of the whole world is definitely rising, even correcting for the city effect.So the final conclusion is not at all clear.
Harley, until you stop promoting the interests of massively-polluting corporations, and until you stop devoting so much effort into promoting pollution on forums such as these, don’t even bother to try to convince us you care about the environment. As long as you continue to fight against the facts of global warming, you’re fighting for continuing pollution. Why are you so in favor of pollution? If we all fight against pollution, and it turns out all the evidence against the man-made factor is wrong, then we end up with a cleaner, healthier environment. Why are you and the other right-wingers so against that?
For the most part, it’s left-wing liberals in favor of doing something about global warming, and the right-wing conservatives who are in favor of pollution.That’s just pure coincidence, right?
Cars, trucks, buses, coal-fired plants, trains, jet aircraft, ships at sea, television, electric ranges—NONE of the things leading to climate change are “Man Made”—“God” gave them to Adam, along with an apple and a couple ice ages which made him kill bears to clothe himself, then the climate warmed and he saw Eve naked in the garden and said “Hubba hubba! That’s a cool idea!” So Adam gave up his clothes, married Eve, had a couple rotten kids, one killed his brother and moved to Nod (now where did those nodians come from?) and invented the internal combustion engine, which he fed dinosaur fat to make it run. That led to all the trouble, and “Man” had nothing to do with it.
@AnthonyThe only thing people in power want to do about global warming to to tax carbon. In the END they’re just getting rich to tax people who pollute. It doesn’t make any more or less pollution, it just allows somebody who “cares” to make a buck. SO, its not about stopping pollution after all, its about money in the long run.
Interestingly enough, it is the significant reduction of air pollutants over the past couple of decades that is in part responsible for increasing the Earth’s temperatures, as more of the Sun’s energy is reaching and heating the Earth’s surface. In fact, some scientists are proposing releasing a controlled quantity of SO4 into the stratosphere, so as to reflect more of Sun’s radiation . . . . And, most importantly, of all pollutants and gasses found in the atmosphere, CO2 is the least effective green-house gas – that is an indisputable fact, which is precisely why attributing CO2 such a high level of responsibility for such a patent HOAX.
OK denialists. I posted sites for the scientific evidence for climate change and not a single one of you has bothered to respond to the evidence and interpretations of that evidence. Instead you respond with anecdotes, statements of belief and invective. This is exactly the sort of behavior that would get you laughed out of a scientific conference.
.
I’ll be happy to start engaging you when you start dealing with the evidence. Until then, the links are still available to you.
@AnthonyHAHAHA…OH, HA HA HA HAAAAA!!!!!! What an ABSOLUTE joke of an analogy! Oh, MAN! Airplanes….buildings…..damaging a heart are ALL things in control of what a man can build and/or destroy, where as destroying the enviroment on a global scale is SO out of our reach!!! The two are not even REMOTELY close to compare to. Also, if I AM wrong about God, then I’m the fool. But I’m not.
Petey, another note: SO2 from exhaust (coal or gasoline) combines with H2O and forms H2SO4. Besides acidifying our lakes etc, I’ve literally seen the combination of auto exhaust mixed with rain melt the nylon stockings on a woman’s leg. Chemistry is science, and part of climate change as well as pollution. Profits by corporations writing or bending the law regarding taxes or NOT cleaning up their act, will NOT change the laws of physics- or chemistry- period.
@AnthonyGee, I’m comfortable with where I’m at in my beliefs. You’ll just believe what you want, I’ll do the same. Too bad you can’t see the scale of the size of a gun and the size of a planet. Go ahead and keep fearing the things out of your control, I’ll keep taking care of the things I can.
You’ve posted this before, and from a scientific perspective it is worthless. Scientific questions are not settled by links posted by a talk show host (unless s/he happens to provide links to the primary literature, which your list does not).
.
Scientific questions are settled by gathering data, considering rational explanations for the data based upon prior scientifically established laws and theories, testing whether those ideas (hypotheses) make sense, throwing out the hypotheses that cannot be supported by the data and repeating the process with more or better data and improved understanding and methods. What happens when this process is followed and considered critically by the scientific community is eventually a consensus on the best explanation for data. The consensus is arrived at by scientists publishing their results in peer-reviewed literature, discussing their ideas in scientific meetings and more informally with each other.
.
But ultimately, it is a critical consensus reached after lots of thought, experimentation and criticism. In the case of global climate change, the first inkling that human activities might even potentially affect climate were discussed as early as the late 1800s after it was discovered that CO2 and other atmospheric gases reflect infrared light.
.
In the first part of the 20th century, some individuals claimed there was some evidence for higher average temperatures in northern temperate zones (where the monitoring was better), but lots of doubt remained. So more data were gathered more broadly. Eventually global data were possible using satellites and multiple spectra. In addition, our ability to model climate improved as computer science advanced.
.
By the late 1980s we had data going back over several hundred thousand years from ice cores and pretty decent computer models, by the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we had good data going back over 600,000 years and a variety of sophisticated models of climate.
.
With each advance in our methods, data and understanding of the global climate system, the evidence has become stronger for anthropogenic climate change rather than weaker. And even more telling, as we have developed better models and have watched the changes over the last couple of decades, the evidence is supporting some of the more extreme predictions rather than the more moderate ones.
.
This is why there is a near universal consensus in the scientific climate change community about anthropogenic climate change. And it’s all there in the scientific literature, which you can delve into by starting with the links I provided. No the links from a talk show host with an agenda.
@AnthonyProfits? What profits? I haven’t seen any increase of money in my bank account by not believing in man made global warming. If that were the case then where’s my share? Well, when you say it THAT way, it sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? How about because I can think for my self and come to my own conclusions without money being a factor???
Continuing with Feralmonkey4 statement, don’t trees intake CO2 and in turn give back oxygen? Why would we want to decrease CO2 (as if we could) that would in turn give us less oxygen? You’d think we’d want to pump more into the air (as if we could to make a difference), to get even more oxygen.
currently the earth is at nearly record low levels of CO2
It is true that viewed over the very long term (on the scale of hundreds of millions of years that we are at levels lower than have been historically seen. But these are not the relevant time frame for considering modern climate change and its possible effects on human civilization. Humans have only been around for about 2 million years, and much more relevantly, our modern agricultural way of life is only about 12,000 years old. So the conditions under which civilization has developed is very recent (geologically speaking).
.
Over the last 600,000 years there is no time during which CO2 levels have been as high as they are now. (The same is true for two other somewhat less important greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide) So during the rise of human civilization, CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now. Therefore, the conditions that have made our civilization possible, particularly the expansion of agriculture into vast tracts of arable land like the Great Plains, occurred under climatic conditions unlike what is now occurring.
there have been full ice ages with Co2 at levels 3 to 4 times today’s levels
Within the last 600,000 years this is simply false. There have been many ice ages during that time period and the level of CO2 has always been substantially lower than it is now.
.
Perhaps you are referring to a previously unexplained ice age during the Ordovician (~440 million years ago). The most recent evidence indicates that ice age actually occurred before the CO2 levels increased due to volcanic activity. http://goo.gl/2OD0c
So, taken as a whole, your individual statements are either incorrect or are applied inappropriately to the problem. What matters for us today is what are the relevant conditions under which our civilization has been made possible. Given those conditions, what effects are our activities having to change those conditions (i.e., the addition of greenhouse gases) and will those effects make it more or less likely for us to continue our civilization? Some of us would also add, how will those altered conditions affect other species as well.
@AnthonyYep, keep up the insults as tho you think they impact me. Just shows your that you can’t keep a discussion and sidetracking it when you are losing. I can sleep at night. You seem to be easily pissed off.
CO2 is a pollutant only when it is exhaled by a conservative Republican. And, in order to properly assess the global climate change we shall consider only the last 10% of the Globe’s life . . . .it is the basic scientific principle in all science, particularly if the big picture is full of aberrations that make no sense, and screw up the otherwise perfectly good looking computer models. And most importantly, you shall disregard anything that has, is, or will occur outside of the human reach, and outside of the globe . . . .because humans, particularly of the red, pink and green persuasion are omnipotent.
PAJEROGUY said,“don’t trees intake CO2 and in turn give back oxygen? Why would we want to decrease CO2 (as if we could) that would in turn give us less oxygen?”
That’s in line with, “There is oxygen in water therefore we can breathe underwater.”
With respect to motivations, well, it is no accident that all reds, pinks and other forms of leftists are now ‘green’. Having failed to take control of the World through ideology, they have leached up on to the CO2 malign wagon, for it serves the same purpose.
I too sincerely doubt his tale about being a physicist, but being a good scientist ;-), I’m willing to give him a chance to provide me with the evidence that shows I’m wrong.
.
On the other hand, until he provides convincing evidence, I’m not going to waste more time on him.
It occurs to me that I should add that the emphasis on CO2 levels that these people hang onto is relevant in that they cannot see the larger picture which we as biologists are seeing.
Can you expand on that a bit. I want to make sure I understand your point.
Simple math problem- Take seven BILLION people and their environmentally damaging devices (not just CO2), subtract the number of sane people who’ve observed actual impacts of population and consumption, and the result is the “denier” population.
Just looking at the amount and distribution of plastics and byproducts of decomposition in our oceans demonstrates the impacts of our “progress”. Looking at the decline in numbers of numerous species, as in “commercial food species” in our oceans reflects on that human population bomb “deniers” have no intent of defusing.
It ain’t all about carbon credits and CO2, but the massive destruction of biota.
Leaving global deforestation aside for the moment, my understanding is that all the oxygen produced by terrestrial vegetation is dwarfed by the amount produce by algae. You know, that algae which is disappearing from increasingly-large portions of the oceans…
That is an interesting ‘discussion’ about science . . . .The ‘believers keep harping about the CO2’s effect on the climate change, referring to a pile of selective data and politically tainted analysis, and then, when confronted about their basis, they demand proof that their conclusions are wrong . . . . . prove negative, now that is good science. Now, the ‘believer’ scientific community would have much greater credibility if they were to seriously consider such things as for example increasing levels of methane, which is about 6 times as potent a green-house effect gas as CO2 is. But, industrial society burns methane and thus produce CO2, and that would be counterproductive to the agenda of the ‘greens’.
Craig, well done. petergrt, you have provided no evidence that you know squat about physics, and I’m a psychologist, for God’s sake. But I am a scientist, and I have been trying to keep up with the data as best I can. I will note one thing: Methane is in the list as well. In fact, one reason to fear the melting of the polar ice caps is that they trap a LOT of methane which could possibly trigger runaway climate change. Plenty of data.
Peter knows that we have no other choice but to bend over and take it up the rear if his beloved Corporations are inconvenienced at all. His religious beliefs clearly tell him that taking anything up the rear is an unforgivable sin (a WORSE sin than the others cuz it’s so GROSS). Therefore, give the Corporate Overlords what they want. It’s not very good logic, but it is a kind of logic, right?
Thanks for the more detailed explanation. And I fully agree with what you said. In fact, when I teach about global climate change in my honors introductory bio course, I take precisely the approach you’re talking about.
.
I provide the students with the physical science that supports anthropogenic change and then talk about the sorts of changes that we would expect given the changes in climate. We then go over several meta analyses of large numbers of experiments and see that the overall patterns are fully in line with expectations. These include movement of species to higher latitudes and altitudes to remain at preferred temperatures, detrimental effects on species that cannot move to accommodate temperature changes, e.g., the frog extinctions in Central America due to a disease fungus moving to higher altitudes when the frogs cannot move to higher altitudes due to other ecological constraints, etc.
.
What seems most apparent to me in these “discussions” with climate change denialists is that they are almost always scientifically illiterate/ignorant or they are so invested in a particular partisan point of view that it overrides their ability to be open to considering the science. What I find so surprising is their willingness to display those qualities so freely in an open forum. I would be ashamed of myself if I spewed the garbage they seem so self-assured in presenting.
The funniest part is that so many believe in global warming, then drive everywhere. I don’t believe it is people driven because throughout history we have had cycles, yet I ride the bus or bike the 8.9 miles to work and get asked if I do it for the climate. Funny how Corporations are blamed but take a look at the roads…look at all the cars with single drivers…LOL. If you want to save the environment…WALK!
William Bednar Premium Member almost 13 years ago
Or…Junk your tweet??
babka Premium Member almost 13 years ago
Amen & Bingo! tell it!
toofunny52 almost 13 years ago
Those bears recognize it. Now if only we were as smart…
riley05 almost 13 years ago
Pro-pollution people like Harley and Howie must get paid by the oil companies to devote so much time to their cause.
Motivemagus almost 13 years ago
Scientists agree: Global warming is real, it’s happening more rapidly now, and we don’t know when it will peak or if there is a tipping point beyond which we can’t stop it.The uninformed agree: It’s all about Al Gore
crlinder almost 13 years ago
From the denialists it’s SSND. The science is strong and unequivocal at this point: human-driven global climate change is real. And doing nothing about it, just shows how collectively stupid we really are.
.
As a species we have the misfortune of being intellectually and technologically advanced enough to wreak havoc with the environment that supports us, but nonetheless retain evolutionarily ancient emotional shortsightedness about understanding and accepting the need to act collectively in our common interest.
Dtroutma almost 13 years ago
Dassman pointed out that humans had changed the climate in the Mediterranean area (warming) and in northern Europe (cooling) by human activity- he did call it CLIMATE CHANGE— in the mid- 1950’s!!! He also noted the desertification of north Africa had increased, as had vegetation in southern Europe. Pointing out the biological, not just “weather” impacts. Humans in ever increasing numbers, with increasing “technology” were the problem at the time, not the cure. Today, “profit” drives corporate decisions counter to the public need, but the propaganda machine has a lot better funding on the side of denial for profit, than promoting for posterity.
jimbobka almost 13 years ago
Once again, the comments demonstrate an inability for there to be rational discussion. Anyone who disagrees cannot just disagree, but either must be an uneducated hick (of course, I take offense at the insinuation that people with non-middle American accents are uneducated) OR they must be a blind Al-Gore worshipping liberal.
Craig, how do you know the “science is strong and unequivocal”? And Don, how do you know that “it’s over”? I’m afraid most Americans’ opinions depend on what news they choose to watch rather than what science they’ve read.
I’m willing to say I don’t know if global warming is happening or not and, assuming it is, if humans are the primary cause. But long before the global warming discussion, I thought polluting the air and land and our insatiable appetite for energy (including Al Gore’s own home) are obscene. No need for global warming to tell us current trends are not sustainable.
jsw748 almost 13 years ago
For some, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
crlinder almost 13 years ago
Could you try posting that again? The formatting makes it unreadable.
rockngolfer almost 13 years ago
Those polar bears should just come down and mate with grizzly bears the way other polar bears are doing.
riley05 almost 13 years ago
If human-caused global warming is real, then the only thing we can do about it is try to reduce pollution.Why are the deniers so against reducing pollution?
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
I keep asking whenever a stupid “Man Made Climate Change/Global Warming” cartoon shows up, and no one can ever seem to answer it. IF man was the cause of global warming because of burning fossil fuels, and thus causes such extreme weather disasters, then HOW do they explain similar and sometimes WORSE disasters in history by nature BEFORE man started burning fossil fuels? Iowa was once a supposed ice glacier….how then did it melt into what we know it now who knows how many CENTURYS ago if man wasn’t causing “Global Warming”?….hmmmm, could it be NATURAL cycles of the Earth by the cause of the SUN which is NOT in MAN’S control??
petergrt almost 13 years ago
Earth’s climate has, is and will continue changing – for the next few billion years. Until the Sun implodes. Man’s activity such as deforestation, have an effect on the climate. Man’s production of CO2 as being a MAJOR factor in global climate change = hoax of the highest order.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
2 Timothy 2:23.
justme- almost 13 years ago
Yup, exactly why the overwhelming majority of scientists now agree that they were wrong on the Global Warming issue and that they do not have sufficient data to make the case for global warming. The smart ones were saying that all along but no one wanted to listen….Urban sprawl in 3rd world countries does more damage to the environment than the the US does by simply removing the ecosystem for civilization to grow.
Dtroutma almost 13 years ago
The real problem is that the corporations behind the “denier movement” have an adequate supply of Americans who find a light switch an “intellectual challenge” and the education of an earthworm.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
@CanuckBecause you’ve made up your mind despite evidence. Thus, you’re unable to reason with. I don’t want the Earth trashed no more than anyone else. I don’t go out of my way to care less. But you will not be persuaded by that either. Just when your types can’t arugue anymore you throw insults. So, ultimately, there is no point to reason with your types.
riley05 almost 13 years ago
Harley, the only response we have to man-made global warming is to reduce pollution. You are against that. You are therefore pro-pollution. If you aren’t pro-pollution, then it should make zero difference to you whether or not global warming is caused by man…which is obviously not the case, since you devote so much effort denying the evidence.
Motivemagus almost 13 years ago
Those of us who have been convinced that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) exists, have been citing facts and sources rather than snide remarks and obvious points. (My favorite site: www.realclimate.org). Scores of scientific associations all around the world have committed to the truth of global warming.AGW doesn’t mean that the Earth didn’t have climate shifts in the past, it just means that this one seems to be due to our influence. Nor does it mean this is a catastrophe for all life on Earth, but it can and will be catastrophic for our civilization if we don’t work on it. Some of the factors (and CO2 is NOT the only factor, just a critical one for a lot of reasons) will be extremely hard to undo without some form of active effort.
WarBush almost 13 years ago
michaelwme said, 1 day ago
Science Lesson.I have repeatedly suggested people actually look at the data. The Climate changers say, ‘The Scientists say it’s true, and no one else can possibly understand the science.’ The Deniers say, ’Don’t show me any data, I know it’s not true.’There are so-called areas of science where charlatans have taken control and make sure that no real scientists are allowed to penetrate the field.So saying ‘All Scientists is this field say …’ is NOT a valid argument. When the field releases all data and says, ‘Look for yourself,’ then and only then does it look like real science. And the Climate Change people HAVE released all data.But there are problems with the data. The biggest is scalarisation of vectors. The Arctic is definitely warming. The rest of the world may or may not be warming. But the world average, given the warming of the Arctic, is definitely warming.Outside the Arctic, cities are much warmer, but cities have heating and cooling raising the temperature around the old temperature station. Villages are about the same temperature over the last century. But the average of the whole world is definitely rising, even correcting for the city effect.So the final conclusion is not at all clear.
WarBush almost 13 years ago
So basically you clean out the dirty rivers only to have your rich buddies take a dump in’em? That’s pretty counter productive don’t ya think?
riley05 almost 13 years ago
Harley, until you stop promoting the interests of massively-polluting corporations, and until you stop devoting so much effort into promoting pollution on forums such as these, don’t even bother to try to convince us you care about the environment. As long as you continue to fight against the facts of global warming, you’re fighting for continuing pollution. Why are you so in favor of pollution? If we all fight against pollution, and it turns out all the evidence against the man-made factor is wrong, then we end up with a cleaner, healthier environment. Why are you and the other right-wingers so against that?
riley05 almost 13 years ago
For the most part, it’s left-wing liberals in favor of doing something about global warming, and the right-wing conservatives who are in favor of pollution.That’s just pure coincidence, right?
Dtroutma almost 13 years ago
Cars, trucks, buses, coal-fired plants, trains, jet aircraft, ships at sea, television, electric ranges—NONE of the things leading to climate change are “Man Made”—“God” gave them to Adam, along with an apple and a couple ice ages which made him kill bears to clothe himself, then the climate warmed and he saw Eve naked in the garden and said “Hubba hubba! That’s a cool idea!” So Adam gave up his clothes, married Eve, had a couple rotten kids, one killed his brother and moved to Nod (now where did those nodians come from?) and invented the internal combustion engine, which he fed dinosaur fat to make it run. That led to all the trouble, and “Man” had nothing to do with it.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
@AnthonyThe only thing people in power want to do about global warming to to tax carbon. In the END they’re just getting rich to tax people who pollute. It doesn’t make any more or less pollution, it just allows somebody who “cares” to make a buck. SO, its not about stopping pollution after all, its about money in the long run.
petergrt almost 13 years ago
Interestingly enough, it is the significant reduction of air pollutants over the past couple of decades that is in part responsible for increasing the Earth’s temperatures, as more of the Sun’s energy is reaching and heating the Earth’s surface. In fact, some scientists are proposing releasing a controlled quantity of SO4 into the stratosphere, so as to reflect more of Sun’s radiation . . . . And, most importantly, of all pollutants and gasses found in the atmosphere, CO2 is the least effective green-house gas – that is an indisputable fact, which is precisely why attributing CO2 such a high level of responsibility for such a patent HOAX.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
Thank you for proving my point of 2 Timothy 2:23 Anthony.
crlinder almost 13 years ago
OK denialists. I posted sites for the scientific evidence for climate change and not a single one of you has bothered to respond to the evidence and interpretations of that evidence. Instead you respond with anecdotes, statements of belief and invective. This is exactly the sort of behavior that would get you laughed out of a scientific conference.
.
I’ll be happy to start engaging you when you start dealing with the evidence. Until then, the links are still available to you.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
@AnthonyHAHAHA…OH, HA HA HA HAAAAA!!!!!! What an ABSOLUTE joke of an analogy! Oh, MAN! Airplanes….buildings…..damaging a heart are ALL things in control of what a man can build and/or destroy, where as destroying the enviroment on a global scale is SO out of our reach!!! The two are not even REMOTELY close to compare to. Also, if I AM wrong about God, then I’m the fool. But I’m not.
SABRSteve almost 13 years ago
There are scientists who disagree with global warming. And the debate continues…
WarBush almost 13 years ago
^The ones being paid by oil companies are the deniers.
Dtroutma almost 13 years ago
Petey, another note: SO2 from exhaust (coal or gasoline) combines with H2O and forms H2SO4. Besides acidifying our lakes etc, I’ve literally seen the combination of auto exhaust mixed with rain melt the nylon stockings on a woman’s leg. Chemistry is science, and part of climate change as well as pollution. Profits by corporations writing or bending the law regarding taxes or NOT cleaning up their act, will NOT change the laws of physics- or chemistry- period.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
@AnthonyGee, I’m comfortable with where I’m at in my beliefs. You’ll just believe what you want, I’ll do the same. Too bad you can’t see the scale of the size of a gun and the size of a planet. Go ahead and keep fearing the things out of your control, I’ll keep taking care of the things I can.
crlinder almost 13 years ago
You’ve posted this before, and from a scientific perspective it is worthless. Scientific questions are not settled by links posted by a talk show host (unless s/he happens to provide links to the primary literature, which your list does not).
.
Scientific questions are settled by gathering data, considering rational explanations for the data based upon prior scientifically established laws and theories, testing whether those ideas (hypotheses) make sense, throwing out the hypotheses that cannot be supported by the data and repeating the process with more or better data and improved understanding and methods. What happens when this process is followed and considered critically by the scientific community is eventually a consensus on the best explanation for data. The consensus is arrived at by scientists publishing their results in peer-reviewed literature, discussing their ideas in scientific meetings and more informally with each other.
.
But ultimately, it is a critical consensus reached after lots of thought, experimentation and criticism. In the case of global climate change, the first inkling that human activities might even potentially affect climate were discussed as early as the late 1800s after it was discovered that CO2 and other atmospheric gases reflect infrared light.
.
In the first part of the 20th century, some individuals claimed there was some evidence for higher average temperatures in northern temperate zones (where the monitoring was better), but lots of doubt remained. So more data were gathered more broadly. Eventually global data were possible using satellites and multiple spectra. In addition, our ability to model climate improved as computer science advanced.
.
By the late 1980s we had data going back over several hundred thousand years from ice cores and pretty decent computer models, by the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we had good data going back over 600,000 years and a variety of sophisticated models of climate.
.
With each advance in our methods, data and understanding of the global climate system, the evidence has become stronger for anthropogenic climate change rather than weaker. And even more telling, as we have developed better models and have watched the changes over the last couple of decades, the evidence is supporting some of the more extreme predictions rather than the more moderate ones.
.
This is why there is a near universal consensus in the scientific climate change community about anthropogenic climate change. And it’s all there in the scientific literature, which you can delve into by starting with the links I provided. No the links from a talk show host with an agenda.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
@AnthonyProfits? What profits? I haven’t seen any increase of money in my bank account by not believing in man made global warming. If that were the case then where’s my share? Well, when you say it THAT way, it sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? How about because I can think for my self and come to my own conclusions without money being a factor???
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
Continuing with Feralmonkey4 statement, don’t trees intake CO2 and in turn give back oxygen? Why would we want to decrease CO2 (as if we could) that would in turn give us less oxygen? You’d think we’d want to pump more into the air (as if we could to make a difference), to get even more oxygen.
crlinder almost 13 years ago
It is true that viewed over the very long term (on the scale of hundreds of millions of years that we are at levels lower than have been historically seen. But these are not the relevant time frame for considering modern climate change and its possible effects on human civilization. Humans have only been around for about 2 million years, and much more relevantly, our modern agricultural way of life is only about 12,000 years old. So the conditions under which civilization has developed is very recent (geologically speaking).
.
Over the last 600,000 years there is no time during which CO2 levels have been as high as they are now. (The same is true for two other somewhat less important greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide) So during the rise of human civilization, CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now. Therefore, the conditions that have made our civilization possible, particularly the expansion of agriculture into vast tracts of arable land like the Great Plains, occurred under climatic conditions unlike what is now occurring.
there have been full ice ages with Co2 at levels 3 to 4 times today’s levelsWithin the last 600,000 years this is simply false. There have been many ice ages during that time period and the level of CO2 has always been substantially lower than it is now.
.
Perhaps you are referring to a previously unexplained ice age during the Ordovician (~440 million years ago). The most recent evidence indicates that ice age actually occurred before the CO2 levels increased due to volcanic activity. http://goo.gl/2OD0c
So, taken as a whole, your individual statements are either incorrect or are applied inappropriately to the problem. What matters for us today is what are the relevant conditions under which our civilization has been made possible. Given those conditions, what effects are our activities having to change those conditions (i.e., the addition of greenhouse gases) and will those effects make it more or less likely for us to continue our civilization? Some of us would also add, how will those altered conditions affect other species as well.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 13 years ago
@AnthonyYep, keep up the insults as tho you think they impact me. Just shows your that you can’t keep a discussion and sidetracking it when you are losing. I can sleep at night. You seem to be easily pissed off.
petergrt almost 13 years ago
CO2 is a pollutant only when it is exhaled by a conservative Republican. And, in order to properly assess the global climate change we shall consider only the last 10% of the Globe’s life . . . .it is the basic scientific principle in all science, particularly if the big picture is full of aberrations that make no sense, and screw up the otherwise perfectly good looking computer models. And most importantly, you shall disregard anything that has, is, or will occur outside of the human reach, and outside of the globe . . . .because humans, particularly of the red, pink and green persuasion are omnipotent.
crlinder almost 13 years ago
Thanks fennec. I’ll try to get to this soon.
WarBush almost 13 years ago
PAJEROGUY said,“don’t trees intake CO2 and in turn give back oxygen? Why would we want to decrease CO2 (as if we could) that would in turn give us less oxygen?”
That’s in line with, “There is oxygen in water therefore we can breathe underwater.”
petergrt almost 13 years ago
With respect to motivations, well, it is no accident that all reds, pinks and other forms of leftists are now ‘green’. Having failed to take control of the World through ideology, they have leached up on to the CO2 malign wagon, for it serves the same purpose.
crlinder almost 13 years ago
I too sincerely doubt his tale about being a physicist, but being a good scientist ;-), I’m willing to give him a chance to provide me with the evidence that shows I’m wrong.
.
On the other hand, until he provides convincing evidence, I’m not going to waste more time on him.
crlinder almost 13 years ago
Can you expand on that a bit. I want to make sure I understand your point.
Dtroutma almost 13 years ago
Simple math problem- Take seven BILLION people and their environmentally damaging devices (not just CO2), subtract the number of sane people who’ve observed actual impacts of population and consumption, and the result is the “denier” population.
Just looking at the amount and distribution of plastics and byproducts of decomposition in our oceans demonstrates the impacts of our “progress”. Looking at the decline in numbers of numerous species, as in “commercial food species” in our oceans reflects on that human population bomb “deniers” have no intent of defusing.
It ain’t all about carbon credits and CO2, but the massive destruction of biota.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 13 years ago
Leaving global deforestation aside for the moment, my understanding is that all the oxygen produced by terrestrial vegetation is dwarfed by the amount produce by algae. You know, that algae which is disappearing from increasingly-large portions of the oceans…
petergrt almost 13 years ago
That is an interesting ‘discussion’ about science . . . .The ‘believers keep harping about the CO2’s effect on the climate change, referring to a pile of selective data and politically tainted analysis, and then, when confronted about their basis, they demand proof that their conclusions are wrong . . . . . prove negative, now that is good science. Now, the ‘believer’ scientific community would have much greater credibility if they were to seriously consider such things as for example increasing levels of methane, which is about 6 times as potent a green-house effect gas as CO2 is. But, industrial society burns methane and thus produce CO2, and that would be counterproductive to the agenda of the ‘greens’.
Motivemagus almost 13 years ago
Craig, well done. petergrt, you have provided no evidence that you know squat about physics, and I’m a psychologist, for God’s sake. But I am a scientist, and I have been trying to keep up with the data as best I can. I will note one thing: Methane is in the list as well. In fact, one reason to fear the melting of the polar ice caps is that they trap a LOT of methane which could possibly trigger runaway climate change. Plenty of data.
Noveltman almost 13 years ago
Peter knows that we have no other choice but to bend over and take it up the rear if his beloved Corporations are inconvenienced at all. His religious beliefs clearly tell him that taking anything up the rear is an unforgivable sin (a WORSE sin than the others cuz it’s so GROSS). Therefore, give the Corporate Overlords what they want. It’s not very good logic, but it is a kind of logic, right?
Dtroutma almost 13 years ago
fennec— ’zactly.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 13 years ago
WTF? Over a hundred posts on a Global Warming toon? I haven’t read all the posts, but HQ must be on steroids!
crlinder almost 13 years ago
Thanks for the more detailed explanation. And I fully agree with what you said. In fact, when I teach about global climate change in my honors introductory bio course, I take precisely the approach you’re talking about.
.
I provide the students with the physical science that supports anthropogenic change and then talk about the sorts of changes that we would expect given the changes in climate. We then go over several meta analyses of large numbers of experiments and see that the overall patterns are fully in line with expectations. These include movement of species to higher latitudes and altitudes to remain at preferred temperatures, detrimental effects on species that cannot move to accommodate temperature changes, e.g., the frog extinctions in Central America due to a disease fungus moving to higher altitudes when the frogs cannot move to higher altitudes due to other ecological constraints, etc.
.
What seems most apparent to me in these “discussions” with climate change denialists is that they are almost always scientifically illiterate/ignorant or they are so invested in a particular partisan point of view that it overrides their ability to be open to considering the science. What I find so surprising is their willingness to display those qualities so freely in an open forum. I would be ashamed of myself if I spewed the garbage they seem so self-assured in presenting.
aguirra3 almost 13 years ago
The funniest part is that so many believe in global warming, then drive everywhere. I don’t believe it is people driven because throughout history we have had cycles, yet I ride the bus or bike the 8.9 miles to work and get asked if I do it for the climate. Funny how Corporations are blamed but take a look at the roads…look at all the cars with single drivers…LOL. If you want to save the environment…WALK!