The truth of Global Warming

[Catawba]

Local weather is not global climate.

Very true! But it doesn't make Ptif's point.

 

[Catawba]

So, brush fires are causing global warming now?

Here's the thing though : Natural or man-made, brush fires are NECESSARY to the continuation of the forests. The fact is that many trees seeds will ONLY germinate when exposed to the heat of a fire.

The analogy went right over your head didn't i?

In the grand scheme, if there's going to be a catastrophic climactic shift, it's going to be due to something much larger then the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and I've time and time again made you guys concede that other issues are of less importance then Co2.... even when those other issues are causing devastating, measurable, and immediate consequences.

We've heard your opinion before. It is faulty reasoning not based on science.

 

[Catawba]

No, I see how you fail to prove global warming whrn recurring climate change melts ice it made over the last 1000 years

Its not recurring climate change, look it up. The Holocene warming was not a global warming event and was caused by natural factors that have been shown not to be the cause of this warming. Orbital shifts and a solar maximum is the scientific consensus of what caused the Holocene warming in certain regions. We have not had the orbital shifts or solar maximum during this warming, but we do have the fact that we pump out about 6,400 million metric tons of CO2 annually that we add to what the earth produces naturally and is more than the planet can sequester naturally. Which is why the CO2 levels are 100 ppm higher than in the last 650,000 years and why the planet is warming.

 

[doctorhugo]

Originally Posted by Catawba If you had read just a little bit further in your article you would have read their point, which was:

"Man-made, or "anthropogenic" emissions can make the consequences of volcanic eruptions on the global climate system more severe, Stenchikov says. For instance, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere start a chain of chemical reactions on aerosol surfaces that destroy ozone molecules in the mid-latitude stratosphere, intensifying observed stratospheric ozone depletion."

Ah friend! I did read all the way through and you've done just what I wanted you to, which is why I made no comment on it. You brought that up and invalidated yourself. Read the comment with a more circumspect eye. In the first sentence you'll notice the word "can" indicating that something happens only under certain circumstances. He then goes on to explain the cicumstances upon which that is so. What he is actually doing is saying that some effect is obviously man-made, but not boxing himself into a corner on how much. We who oppose you have not denied that fossil fuel emissions generate carbon waste and a heating by-product. Only an idiot would say that. We say that to significantly reduce them, meaning enough so as to really impact a change either might never be possible or, if possible, would put an impossible strain on individual countries economies. This is the real issue and I've decided not to continue engaging ii the in perpetuity argument over whether or not global warming is the dire threat you people say, because it's an argument that neither side can win. The alarmists reaction to that very concern was Cap and Trade with an agenda of rigid government imposed control that is unconstitutional in this country and which would have included placing a market value on pollution as an investment vehicle. Do you know what I'm talking about? CARBON CREDIT DERIVATIVES! An exercise in insanity. If you first damn "carbon emissions" how in the name of sanity do you set up a trading marketplace for speculation on them to give polluters an out and investors a new corruption for greed. In that scenario the incentive is to control carbon to maintain a good value on it, not to significantly reduce it. We have enough of that already with regular derivatives and ineffectual "wink and a nod" regulatory procedures. So you see this problem is much deeper than first it appears to be.

You are surprised that droughts get worse when it gets warmer? :sun

Nope! naturally impacted droughts are not of our control.

 

[doctorhugo]

Red font does not a valid argument make.

Cutesy technique of diversion albeit obvious, which ignores what said font highlights. Please not to insult my intelligence with such obvious chicanery.

On to the more important issue here to put an end to this.

There never was a scientific consensus for an eminent ice age so it is irrelevant to a discussion of GW. From your article, further scientific testimony to AGW:

"Satellite imaging carried out by NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that 40 percent of our multiyear ice has rescinded between 2005 and 2007. In my opinion, there is no room to argue that an environment that has been cold for nearly 10,000 years is going through a heat stroke. The planet’s various ecosystems operate naturally together like the many systems in a body would. What happens when a body gets overheated? It does not operate normally as it should."

"The health of the walrus and bowhead whale are intrinsically tied to the health of the Northern communities. It is not surprising that the 40 percent loss of multi-year ice coverage between 2005 and 2007 contributed to the anomaly of beached and trampled walruses in 2007 and the very low spring whaling season of 2006.

For too long, American communities have become comfortable within the capitalistic world market. Many of us live our lives, within the comforts of our own homes, without thinking about where our energy is coming from and where the pollution is going. The Northern Inupiat hunting lifestyle is being threatened by the shrinking and weakening of sea ice. Who carries the burden of the warming Arctic temperatures while others benefit from the over-usage of fossil fuels?"




No, science is not split. There has been a solid consensus, as I have shown, since 2007. And you have provided absolutely nothing to refute it.


Your font work however is very nice! :sun

All this supercillious prattle about what"? "consensus". Your keyword along with "scientific". None of that scientific consensus stands up to a definitve scientific point. All is theory based upon information (skewed to an end conclusion) entered into computers. A little tweaking of the input data here and there and it all comes out in the end as you alarmists wish it. That is what the email scam uncovered and you cannot run away from it. You might even say that would be the "scientific consensus" of wht that charade revealed!Nonetheless I see that with almost every post comment, you fall back on that same invalid support mechanism of "scientific consensus", which is and of itself BABBLE!

So, I have decided to, as I noted in a earlier post made to you, to stop this stupid bouncing of the ball of opinion back and forth to no worthwhile end. You will of course claim that you won a hotly contested victory. I admit it. You did. You were able to shovel enough **** over to my side of the room that I finally said enough, I won't waste my time with this issue that has no valid scientific answer anymore. Keep waving your petard of "scientific consensus" ROTFLMAO! Because when I look up at it it actually reads 'computer generated theory'. How about that! One pennant waving in the warming, man-made, global breeze that gives off two differing messsages:idea:.[sarcasm]Go ahead now rejoice![/sarcasm]

 

[BmanMcfly]

The analogy went right over your head didn't i?

No, I get it... and it was intentional. Co2 was not man-made in the past but it is now, so it's mans fault. Then, man-made global warming becomes caused by man-made CO2.

So, using your logic, and analogy, it's only rational that man-made brush fires are now causing global warming.

We've heard your opinion before. It is faulty reasoning not based on science.

No, it's based on what the people who sign your scientists paychecks have to say. But, no, it's a 'conspiracy theory' that a basketballer might go on TV to talk about how those Nike's improve his game.... or that 'wheaties' are scientifically shown to improve sports performance.

 

[Catawba]

Ah friend! I did read all the way through and you've done just what I wanted you to, which is why I made no comment on it. You brought that up and invalidated yourself. Read the comment with a more circumspect eye. In the first sentence you'll notice the word "can" indicating that something happens only under certain circumstances. He then goes on to explain the cicumstances upon which that is so. What he is actually doing is saying that some effect is obviously man-made, but not boxing himself into a corner on how much. We who oppose you have not denied that fossil fuel emissions generate carbon waste and a heating by-product. Only an idiot would say that. We say that to significantly reduce them, meaning enough so as to really impact a change either might never be possible or, if possible, would put an impossible strain on individual countries economies. This is the real issue and I've decided not to continue engaging ii the in perpetuity argument over whether or not global warming is the dire threat you people say, because it's an argument that neither side can win.

Scientists do not use absolute terms. It is why gravity is still referred to as a theory. Do you deny gravity because scientists still refer to it as such?

The alarmists reaction to that very concern was Cap and Trade with an agenda of rigid government imposed control that is unconstitutional in this country and which would have included placing a market value on pollution as an investment vehicle. Do you know what I'm talking about? CARBON CREDIT DERIVATIVES! An exercise in insanity. If you first damn "carbon emissions" how in the name of sanity do you set up a trading marketplace for speculation on them to give polluters an out and investors a new corruption for greed. In that scenario the incentive is to control carbon to maintain a good value on it, not to significantly reduce it. We have enough of that already with regular derivatives and ineffectual "wink and a nod" regulatory procedures. So you see this problem is much deeper than first it appears to be.

Pollution credit trading (better known now as cap and trade) is the market based approach introduced during the Reagan administration as a regulatory method preferred by industry.

Nope! naturally impacted droughts are not of our control.

Right you are by reducing our burning of fossil fuels and reducing our destruction of rain forests.

All this supercillious prattle about what"? "consensus". Your keyword along with "scientific". None of that scientific consensus stands up to a definitve scientific point. All is theory based upon information (skewed to an end conclusion) entered into computers. A little tweaking of the input data here and there and it all comes out in the end as you alarmists wish it. That is what the email scam uncovered and you cannot run away from it. You might even say that would be the "scientific consensus" of wht that charade revealed!Nonetheless I see that with almost every post comment, you fall back on that same invalid support mechanism of "scientific consensus", which is and of itself BABBLE!

So, you choose not to believe the scientific consensus of AGW and gravity? To each their own. You may believe whatever you like.

So, I have decided to, as I noted in a earlier post made to you, to stop this stupid bouncing of the ball of opinion back and forth to no worthwhile end. You will of course claim that you won a hotly contested victory. I admit it. You did. You were able to shovel enough **** over to my side of the room that I finally said enough, I won't waste my time with this issue that has no valid scientific answer anymore. Keep waving your petard of "scientific consensus" ROTFLMAO! Because when I look up at it it actually reads 'computer generated theory'. How about that! One pennant waving in the warming, man-made, global breeze that gives off two differing messsages:idea:.[sarcasm]Go ahead now rejoice![/sarcasm]

Just as well that you do since you have not proved the case you boasted about. But you will always have your 4 guys that believe as you do and some very fine usage of red font! :sun

 

[Dittohead not!]

[

We who oppose you have not denied that fossil fuel emissions generate carbon waste and a heating by-product.

No? I have read that very position in this rather long and rambling thread.

Only an idiot would say that.

agreed.

We say that to significantly reduce them, meaning enough so as to really impact a change either might never be possible or, if possible, would put an impossible strain on individual countries economies.

Now, you're arguing fallback position #3. #1 is, there is no global warming (unsustainable argument), #2 is that there is, but human activities aren't accelerating it (unsustainable argument). You have gone to #3, there is nothing practical that we can do about it anyway Now we've found an argument that can be sustained.

This is the real issue and I've decided not to continue engaging ii the in perpetuity argument over whether or not global warming is the dire threat you people say, because it's an argument that neither side can win.

Agreed. We don't know whether it is a "dire threat".

The alarmists reaction to that very concern was Cap and Trade with an agenda of rigid government imposed control that is unconstitutional in this country and which would have included placing a market value on pollution as an investment vehicle. Do you know what I'm talking about? CARBON CREDIT DERIVATIVES! An exercise in insanity. If you first damn "carbon emissions" how in the name of sanity do you set up a trading marketplace for speculation on them to give polluters an out and investors a new corruption for greed. In that scenario the incentive is to control carbon to maintain a good value on it, not to significantly reduce it. We have enough of that already with regular derivatives and ineffectual "wink and a nod" regulatory procedures. So you see this problem is much deeper than first it appears to be.

Now, you're arguing from a plausible point of view: Politically, there is little to be done about AGW.

The problem with discussions about AGW is that the arguments rarely focus on what science actually says about AGW and instead go to the effectiveness or lack thereof of what is being proposed to fight it. In so doing, we hear all sorts of absurdities about global ice ages and such that are totally implausible.

It is not necessary to try to refute scientific theory in order to argue that the political solutions are not going to be effective.

 

[Red Crow]

Global warming only exists in the deep pockets of greedy people, Gore for one. Global warming is BIG business for him and others.

 

[doctorhugo]

Scientists do not use absolute terms. It is why gravity is still referred to as a theory. Do you deny gravity because scientists still refer to it as such?

Oh on that I agree, but with this limitation. I raise my arm with a stone in it and let it slip from my hand. It falls until it contacts something, The "theory" of gravity is confirmed. One cannot impose any such equal test to "global warming". Why? It's all subjective to the standards/conditions imposed for testing and theorizing. Junk into the computer, junk comes out.

Pollution credit trading (better known now as cap and trade) is the market based approach introduced during the Reagan administration as a regulatory method preferred by industry.

Of course. Business wanted to minimize the financial impact at all costs t their continued growth and Reagan was their guy. No matter. It's still garbage and Obama and the demonRATs pushed it hard. Now they'll be issuing EPA and Commerce Dept regs and directives to slip it by in some form with the full force of law anyway....maybe!

Right you are by reducing our burning of fossil fuels and reducing our destruction of rain forests.

I think you misread many of us who believe that it's NOT global warming or the "greehoiuse effect" that many in opposition do not accept as possible. We don't accept it as inevitable as junk science has been the theoretical proof exhibited for us and we ain't buyin' a pig in a poke! Up here at SUNY Stony Brook, NY they have big environmental sciences department and they actually have poosted online a study paid for with taxpayer $$$s that show how to talk to conservatives to sway them over to their side using the **** science presently the basis for the alarmists. You likely can Google it up anytime.

So, you choose not to believe the scientific consensus of AGW and gravity? To each their own. You may believe whatever you like.

NO. As I indicated here at the top. I believe in gravity, because be clearly demonstrated to exist and very accurately so. If you find someone who refuses to accept the Theory of Gravity you should position him alongside a building and bolster his confidence with a "last chance" caveat before your assistants push a 1,000 pound safe off the roof just above him. I love irrefutable proof in the form of actual subject matter than can be scraped away for analysis! Hugo's Law of Falling Objects says that fellow is in for one Hell of a surprise, but he'll never come to that realization.:bon_voyag

Just as well that you do since you have not proved the case you boasted about. But you will always have your 4 guys that believe as you do and some very fine usage of red font! :sun

Gee! My confidence in your false glory was validated. (You're lucky I didn't play rough and introduce all the garbage unearthed from the email fiasco:idea:...oh boy!)

 

[Catawba]

Global warming only exists in the deep pockets of greedy people, Gore for one. Global warming is BIG business for him and others.

Thanks for you opinion! :sun

 

[doctorhugo]

No? I have read that very position in this rather long and rambling thread.

Not from me you haven't. You appear to suffer from the diametrically politicized mentality. I believe that which I do for logical and reasonable reasons. I don't accept Gorian theorums promulgated as gospel.

agreed.

Good, another positive sign.

Now, you're arguing fallback position #3. #1 is, there is no global warming (unsustainable argument), #2 is that there is, but human activities aren't accelerating it (unsustainable argument). You have gone to #3, there is nothing practical that we can do about it anyway Now we've found an argument that can be sustained.

You do so love doing that don't you. Rephrase to your convenience of parlance, but I dig what you're doing. I'm falling back, as you prefer to say, on nothing. I've simply volunteered a few anecdotal observations so all reading can see my perspective. It's no position at all, just an acknowledgement of that which I believe. I came to the point, as I earlier here stated twice, wherein I realized that this argument is nothing more than a circle-jerkle for all participants and a waste of time with NO PROVABLE WRONG AND RIGHT. It will go on ad infinitum in the same manner. There are other fields to explore and opine upon. For that reason I've exited that portion of the debate, but not left the discussion.

Agreed. We don't know whether it is a "dire threat".

In that case you are an alarmist of the minority belief then. Bad Algorithms, Soothsayer of Global Warming, has all but decreed it to the world. He bestrode about yee as a Goliath and yee did peep about as wretched underlings awed by his very presence. And the world listened and it was many, if not most, who sucked up his Sermon Upon A Porcelain Facility like a newborn babe suckled to Mamma's teat draining her dry. Oh! The humanity of it all. When reason recedes and vacuous adoration conquers the senses.

Now, you're arguing from a plausible point of view: Politically, there is little to be done about AGW.

Indeed!

The problem with discussions about AGW is that the arguments rarely focus on what science actually says about AGW and instead go to the effectiveness or lack thereof of what is being proposed to fight it. In so doing, we hear all sorts of absurdities about global ice ages and such that are totally implausible.

It is not necessary to try to refute scientific theory in order to argue that the political solutions are not going to be effective.

Agreed.


Conclusion: All in all an improvement in the meeting of minds.

 

[Catawba]

Oh on that I agree, but with this limitation. I raise my arm with a stone in it and let it slip from my hand. It falls until it contacts something, The "theory" of gravity is confirmed. One cannot impose any such equal test to "global warming". Why? It's all subjective to the standards/conditions imposed for testing and theorizing. Junk into the computer, junk comes out.

So have you not seen the empirical evidence of GW?

Of course. Business wanted to minimize the financial impact at all costs t their continued growth and Reagan was their guy. No matter. It's still garbage and Obama and the demonRATs pushed it hard. Now they'll be issuing EPA and Commerce Dept regs and directives to slip it by in some form with the full force of law anyway....maybe!

Why would they not use what has been been used successfully for decades for other pollutants? In order for any law to be beneficial it first has to be politically passed. What do you suggest is more a more politically acceptable method to regulate pollution?

I think you misread many of us who believe that it's NOT global warming or the "greehoiuse effect" that many in opposition do not accept as possible. We don't accept it as inevitable as junk science has been the theoretical proof exhibited for us and we ain't buyin' a pig in a poke! Up here at SUNY Stony Brook, NY they have big environmental sciences department and they actually have poosted online a study paid for with taxpayer $$$s that show how to talk to conservatives to sway them over to their side using the **** science presently the basis for the alarmists. You likely can Google it up anytime.

Of course many do not believe in science. Can't help you if that's your belief.

 

[Catawba]

I'm falling back, as you prefer to say, on nothing.

And doing a bang up job I might add! :sun

 

[Dittohead not!]

In that case you are an alarmist of the minority belief then. Bad Algorithms, Soothsayer of Global Warming, has all but decreed it to the world. He bestrode about yee as a Goliath and yee did peep about as wretched underlings awed by his very presence. And the world listened and it was many, if not most, who sucked up his Sermon Upon A Porcelain Facility like a newborn babe suckled to Mamma's teat draining her dry. Oh! The humanity of it all. When reason recedes and vacuous adoration conquers the senses.

Oh, I don't think I'm an alarmist at all. I'm more of a supporter to the scientific method as a way of figuring out how the world works as opposed to listening to rants and absurdities, or relying on wishful thinking.

All in all an improvement in the meeting of minds.

I don't think we were ever very far apart anyway.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think you misread many of us who believe that it's NOT global warming or the "greehoiuse effect" that many in opposition do not accept as possible.

Quite a few do seem to be arguing from position 1 (global warming isn't real) or position 2 (it isn't being caused by humans) rather than positions 3 (political solutions aren't going to work) or 4 (it isn't necessarily a disaster in the making). Some keep shifting from one position to the other.

We don't accept it as inevitable as junk science has been the theoretical proof exhibited for us and we ain't buyin' a pig in a poke! Up here at SUNY Stony Brook, NY they have big environmental sciences department and they actually have poosted online a study paid for with taxpayer $$$s that show how to talk to conservatives to sway them over to their side using the **** science presently the basis for the alarmists. You likely can Google it up anytime.

Now I'm impressed. They actually found a way to convince Self Described Conservatives (SDC) that modern science is actually superior to silly bloggers and pundits? I've been arguing that point for a long time, and still haven't convinced anyone of that. It seems that the SDC community is so steeped in Beck and Limbaugh that they can't see anything else.

 

[doctorhugo]

So have you not seen the empirical evidence of GW?

Do you mean this

...or this

or quite possibly this

Why would they not use what has been been used successfully for decades for other pollutants? In order for any law to be beneficial it first has to be politically passed. What do you suggest is more a more politically acceptable method to regulate pollution?

I think that goverment should determine, without an ancillary political agenda, what would be effective while at the same time be economically feasible for industry to implement. Promulgate in writing this information to businesses who wish to participate by a download accessibility to a restricted portion of a government website and request that they come up with a plan that meets the standards set as best they can and submit their results back to goverment for inclusion in determining environmental policy for their general industry. These companies who voluteer will aid in establishingthe environmental criteria ad future adjustments to same. Enter these companies into an EPA database for ongoing back and forth communciations as need be with the goal of arriving at a set policy within a year. The idea being to use business input to arrive at a feasible option, NOT to impose some blanket regulation upon them which would be economically disastrous and exceed the constitutional authority of government; specifically, the Executive Branch.

Of course many do not believe in science. Can't help you if that's your belief.

Science is not at issue here. Good and honest and complete and reliable science is though. It's not unlike the dire economic realities we face now. The overwhelming majority here are convinced we must do it NOW, because ALL the FULL FACTS necessary to come to that REASONABLE decision have been made available and WE BELIEVE THEM. The people will apply the same standards to this issue and act accordingly. That's my opinion.

 

[Red Crow]

 

[ptif219]

Its not recurring climate change, look it up. The Holocene warming was not a global warming event and was caused by natural factors that have been shown not to be the cause of this warming. Orbital shifts and a solar maximum is the scientific consensus of what caused the Holocene warming in certain regions. We have not had the orbital shifts or solar maximum during this warming, but we do have the fact that we pump out about 6,400 million metric tons of CO2 annually that we add to what the earth produces naturally and is more than the planet can sequester naturally. Which is why the CO2 levels are 100 ppm higher than in the last 650,000 years and why the planet is warming.

You are basing this on the lies and deceptions of GW scientist so your opinion is flawed

 

[doctorhugo]

Quite a few do seem to be arguing from position 1 (global warming isn't real) or position 2 (it isn't being caused by humans) rather than positions 3 (political solutions aren't going to work) or 4 (it isn't necessarily a disaster in the making). Some keep shifting from one position to the other.

My sense is that you and I have more in common in belief and thought patterns than we do in contradiction. I don't see it as positioning so much as doubt. Due to the fact that most science is extrapolated from computer models, the more indefinite and unquantified data one puts in, the more unreliable the output becomes. Mix in the very real politics of global warming as the truth becomes what we called in the military a victim of collateral damage. I try to be circumspect in all things and specific, so accepting theories at face value just to be accomodating really doesnt work. And then there are generalizations which further increase the very real potential to skew inaccurate information all over the damned place. Except for liberals, I try not to generalize. I get into exchanges debating various types of conservatives all the time. When I describe myself uniquely as an "original intent" conservative it usually lights the candle and clears things up, but I've drifted far afield now.

Now I'm impressed. They actually found a way to convince Self Described Conservatives (SDC) that modern science is actually superior to silly bloggers and pundits?

Not quite, you've advanced the ball too far downfield for them. They are engaged in what I can only term 'a concerted propaganda effort'.

I've been arguing that point for a long time, and still haven't convinced anyone of that. It seems that the SDC community is so steeped in Beck and Limbaugh that they can't see anything else.

I think, like many people, conservatives stake out a position first in their minds and then describe themselves by what they perceive they are. I regularly get into it with lefties about neo-cons as they throw the term around and most have no conception of the accurate meaning now. I feel as your choice of username indicates. How can anyone with a modicum of intelligence describe themselves with a term that defines them as simply one of many "sheeple" to any single individual?

 

[Catawba]

I think that goverment should determine, without an ancillary political agenda, what would be effective while at the same time be economically feasible for industry to implement. Promulgate in writing this information to businesses who wish to participate by a download accessibility to a restricted portion of a government website and request that they come up with a plan that meets the standards set as best they can and submit their results back to goverment for inclusion in determining environmental policy for their general industry. These companies who voluteer will aid in establishingthe environmental criteria ad future adjustments to same. Enter these companies into an EPA database for ongoing back and forth communciations as need be with the goal of arriving at a set policy within a year. The idea being to use business input to arrive at a feasible option, NOT to impose some blanket regulation upon them which would be economically disastrous and exceed the constitutional authority of government; specifically, the Executive Branch.

I really must hand it to you, you have really outdone yourself! This is possibly the most idiotic post I've read on this thread, and that says a LOT!!!!!

To suggest that you have a better idea how to control something you do not believe in, goes way beyond the norm. I'll discuss it with the others and we'll see what kind of prize you should be awarded.

Science is not at issue here.

Well obviously it isn't for you anyway.

Good and honest and complete and reliable science is though.

Please make up your mind.

It's not unlike the dire economic realities we face now. The overwhelming majority here are convinced we must do it NOW, because ALL the FULL FACTS necessary to come to that REASONABLE decision have been made available and WE BELIEVE THEM. The people will apply the same standards to this issue and act accordingly. That's my opinion.

Well I don't know what the hell your talking about there, but thanks!

 

[zachjj]

There are tons of researchers that spend all their lives researching global warming that are on either side of this debate. Many believe that global warming is a myth, and that the "warming" that is going on is really either 1) a natural global cycle similar to that of the Ice Age or 2) not even happening at all. Many believe that global warming is most definitely happening, and as a matter of fact, we are causing it through our carbon emissions and pollution of the atmosphere. I'm honestly not sure whether to belive that it is happening or not based on all the people that are on either side of the debate. But here's what I think: even if it's not happening, there are proven harmful effects to pollution. Why don't we reduce pollution even if it is true that the global warming we are experiencing is not real/caused by us. The main thing I'm wondering: Does it REALLY need to take someting drastic like global warming for us to stop hurting the environment and therefore ourselves? Just an opinion......
and, I'm new here, so...... please don't viciously attack me

 

[Catawba]

There are tons of researchers that spend all their lives researching global warming that are on either side of this debate. Many believe that global warming is a myth, and that the "warming" that is going on is really either 1) a natural global cycle similar to that of the Ice Age or 2) not even happening at all. Many believe that global warming is most definitely happening, and as a matter of fact, we are causing it through our carbon emissions and pollution of the atmosphere. I'm honestly not sure whether to belive that it is happening or not based on all the people that are on either side of the debate. But here's what I think: even if it's not happening, there are proven harmful effects to pollution. Why don't we reduce pollution even if it is true that the global warming we are experiencing is not real/caused by us. The main thing I'm wondering: Does it REALLY need to take someting drastic like global warming for us to stop hurting the environment and therefore ourselves? Just an opinion......
and, I'm new here, so...... please don't viciously attack me

A very sensible approach for someone who is not sure. I commend you and welcome you to the forum! :sun


Here is a site you may wish to take a look at: Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

"In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities."

 

[Red Crow]

I SUSPECT AL WOULD LIKE TO SEE WARMER WINTERS SO HIS PREDICTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING WOULD COME TRUE. SORRY AL, YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK! MOTHER NATURE JUST ISN'T LISTENING TO YOUR DIRE PREDICTIONS.

 

[doctorhugo]

To suggest that you have a better idea how to control something you do not believe in, goes way beyond the norm. I'll discuss it with the others and we'll see what kind of prize you should be awarded.

Funny thing. I overestimated you. I had you pegged for a fairly intelligent fellow, but you lack powers of observation. Show me in any of my posts where I said that I do not believe that man contributes carbon waste into the atmosphere from fossil fuel usage. That is, after all, what I'm talking about in response to a request to state my idea of how I would handle a solution to reducing pollution that you went bonkers about. I did state, earlier in this thread, that I do believe that what man can do, within reasonable grounds economically, to reduce that portion of pollution that contributes to global warming is not sufficient enough to resolve the alarmist's scenario over global warming if it was accurate. I also said the science, I believed, was flawed that inspired such alarm and that much assumed statistical data and adjusted information going into computer models make for poor hypothetical examples to base conclusions on. I used different words, but said the same thing. A totally reasonable position to take, but apparently outrageous to you. Did you chance to read ANY of my exchanges with Dittohead, not!? In them I was even redundant on some points. At one point here I made a comment to you about Reagan and his action in support of businesses to enact a form of cap and trade. I termed it "garbage". I wonder how you read that. You should have read it that what was agreed to didn't go far enough in my estimation, but I shouldn't have to translate the obvious to you. After all this back and forth you explode and pontificate upon a conclusion that I'm contradicting myself...I guess. What the Hell else could your petulant verbal assault mean.

Do yourself a favor. Unplug the umbillicus that tethers you to your computer and take a break. Go outside and inhale a deeeeep breath of fresh carbon-laced air. Maybe you'll get lucky and inhale some methane too. That "prize" you gave a passing thought to, it might make a nice rectal suppository to cool you down from the inside. No carbon pollution either.