"Global Warming" or "Interesting Debate On Munk"

[Seil]

I know we've had climate change debates in the past, but I found this really interesting. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-munk-debate-on-climate-change/article1384566/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheGlobeAndMail-National+%28The+Globe+and+Mail+-+National+News%29)

Here's a transcript of the debate, for those that don't want to watch an hour-long internet video. (http://www.munkdebates.com/media/ClimateChangeFullTranscript.pdf)


I was only able to catch the last part of this on the radio, but it was when George was talking about...

I was with one of the relatives of the people in the cattle camp. About 10 miles before we got there this man suddenly burst into tears and he was screaming and wailing and crying and I asked him what on earth was going on. And he said, can’t you see? And I said, I’m sorry, I can’t see. And as I got closer and closer, I did see. There were vultures hanging in the air just above this cattle camp. And when we arrived, all that remained of the 98 people who lived there were their skulls and backbones. The rest had been eaten by hyenas. The Toposa people had come in the night and surrounded this cattle camp and machine gunned it with AK-47s and G3s. They killed 96 people that night. There were two that got away and they killed them the next day.

They killed them because they were desperate and they were desperate because of droughts. And that drought almost certainly was a result of climate change.

This is what we are up against. Not the esoteric abstractions and the figures and the squabbles we’ve been having over spreadsheets and computer programs and what this figure says and what that figure says. This is about life and death to these people — people I came to love and respect when I was there. And it was seeing that, which turned me into a climate change campaigner.

I thought that it was neat because it provided a different set of problems arising from climate change rather than It's fucking hot and we're killing all the whales! (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?t=22281)

Short version of Bjorn's argument. (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/02/bjorn-lomborg-not-mankind-s-defining-crisis.aspx)
Short version of George's argument. (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/02/george-monbiot-climate-change-destroys-human-lives.aspx)

[Amake]

98? More people than that probably freeze to death in my depopulated country's capital any given winter. And that's way down in the comfy south compared to where I live. And we got a new ice age on the way. I look out the window at the six feet of snow blocking the door of my balcony and hope for some global warming.

If it's happening, and if it's our fault which I'm not convinced of because people love to overestimate our ability to impact the planet, and if we can do anything about it, I'm not sure we should. Of course using less environmentally destructive fuel for our excessive consumption of power should be an end in itself, and I understand that's the most important thing, so maybe we're on the same page.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

98? More people than that probably freeze to death in my depopulated country's capital any given winter. And that's way down in the comfy south compared to where I live. And we got a new ice age on the way. I look out the window at the six feet of snow blocking the door of my balcony and hope for some global warming.
Seriously, what?

If it's happening, and if it's our fault which I'm not convinced of because people love to overestimate our ability to impact the planet, and if we can do anything about it, I'm not sure we should. Of course using less environmentally destructive fuel for our excessive consumption of power should be an end in itself, and I understand that's the most important thing, so maybe we're on the same page.

Seriously, what?

[Amake]

...Should I repeat myself, or do you need a moment to collect your thoughts or something?

[Geminex]

Perhaps just rephrase your post. At the moment it seems to say that you
a) Do not believe humans are causing climate change (which is already quite arguable)
b) See Global Warming as a good thing because
c) Less people would freeze to death in winter,
d) which would outweigh the massacre described in OP.

...

I'm thinking I must have misread your post, though, because if that is, indeed, what you meant to say, I must join Smarty in saying
Seriously, what?

So yeah, perhaps clarification. Or, alternately, justification.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

...Should I repeat myself, or do you need a moment to collect your thoughts or something?

I was trying to workout whether you are trolling or not.
Seriously,global warming is good because less people will die in the winter...... I mean holy shit is that stupid. I mean maybe in the intervening time we manage to evolve photosynthesis then that is a valid complaint.

[Ibian]

Climate change is happening. The trick is, it has always been happening, long before we started influencing our surroundings.

And that's the basic problem with these types of discussions. When people speak of "climate change", it is almost always implied to mean "man-made climate change", and almost as often "it's bad".

And, well, some of it can be. For example, if we had done nothing, if we had never evolved out of our old hunter-gatherer lifestyle, we would eventually have a new ice age. It might even have been here now.

But that's assuming the people saying we have a meaningful influence on the climate are right. However, under that same assumption, we don't want to reverse what we have been doing for the past several hundred years, because a new ice age would be catastrophic on a scale that slowly rising sea levels and somewhat warmer temperatures could never be. (by the way, the sea level has also been rising since long before we started doing anything about it)

As to the story here. Blame the trigger happy people with guns.

[Amake]

Less people dying sounds like justification enough to me. Maybe more people die from drought and heat and bad weather that may or may not be caused by global warming, than who die from cold and isolation and icicles falling on them? If we could be sure about that I guess that'd change my priorities. But I'm saying the winters in my part of the world suck. My friends are cold all the time, it's a bother to get from point A to point B and a lot of energy is wasted on shoveling snow around and keeping houses hot. It's lifeless and dull. I'd much prefer to be wrestling with floods and hurricanes, as long as the temperature stays above 0°C. Or even above -25.

Just thought I would offer a rarely seen perspective on the issue.

[Green Spanner]

Just thought I would offer a rarely seen perspective on the issue.

There's a reason it's a rarely seen perspective...

[Amake]

The reason being that fewer people live near the poles, and maybe are afraid to speak against the majority.

Not that I'd put my own interests before those of the majority, just pointing out that they exist. And I should say there's plenty of room here in North Sweden for anyone who thinks the weather is too hot. I think we have a new tourist-attracting slogan: Come and freeze your butt off!

[42PETUNIAS]

People die in your country because they're homeless on the streets, not because the weather dips below zero.

[Bob The Mercenary]

What I find funny is, if George W. Bush had implemented a Cap and Trade system while he was in office, people would be pointing to the recent lapse in hurricanes and tornadoes as proof of it working.

[Mr.Bookworm]

The reason being that fewer people live near the poles, and maybe are afraid to speak against the majority.
Less people dying sounds like justification enough to me. Maybe more people die from drought and heat and bad weather that may or may not be caused by global warming, than who die from cold and isolation and icicles falling on them? If we could be sure about that I guess that'd change my priorities. But I'm saying the winters in my part of the world suck. My friends are cold all the time, it's a bother to get from point A to point B and a lot of energy is wasted on shoveling snow around and keeping houses hot. It's lifeless and dull. I'd much prefer to be wrestling with floods and hurricanes, as long as the temperature stays above 0°C. Or even above -25.

http://preparetoenteraworldofpain.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/dr_facepalm.gif

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Less people dying sounds like justification enough to me. Maybe more people die from drought and heat and bad weather that may or may not be caused by global warming, than who die from cold and isolation and icicles falling on them? If we could be sure about that I guess that'd change my priorities. But I'm saying the winters in my part of the world suck. My friends are cold all the time, it's a bother to get from point A to point B and a lot of energy is wasted on shoveling snow around and keeping houses hot. It's lifeless and dull. I'd much prefer to be wrestling with floods and hurricanes, as long as the temperature stays above 0°C. Or even above -25.

Just thought I would offer a rarely seen perspective on the issue.

It's rarelyseen because it is horribly wrong. You can argue about where people live all you want but nobody will have any food because global warming will wipe out our food sources (both temperaturewise and remaining arableland wise). Your winters will be warmer but you'll be dead or eating each other.
Also we're talking millions to billions of deaths over time. Do this many people die in your country every winter?

[bluestarultor]

Holy fucking God, IQ. You're hurting my brain.

First off, the IPCC says that we're pretty much responsible for warming:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html



Second off, global warming is bad. Why? Because it's fucking with the established system that everything on the planet's relied on for the past zillion years, that's why. A rise in temperature means things like bird populations being unable to hatch young as fast as the bug populations to keep them in check, or plant zones heading toward the poles into places they've never been able to grow before and don't belong in, or impacts on global weather patterns that can cause droughts, flooding, storms, and all sorts of other shit.

It's not a matter of "oh, everyone will be warmer." That might actually be nice. No, it's a matter of "it's fucking with the entire global system in ways we don't even have the capacity to fully understand." That's patently less nice.



Third, FUCK YES we need to do something about it, and time is quickly running out. Methane stores are being released and because methane is an even worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, it could quickly start a death spiral that we can't even stop.


The only species on Earth NOT totally directly boned by global warming are humans and anything that we care enough to put effort into saving, like cattle. That's nothing in comparison to the rest of the world's species.

[Mirai Gen]

Maybe more people die from drought and heat...than who die from...cold and icicles falling on them? If we could be sure about that I guess that'd change my priorities.
http://pics.livejournal.com/miraigen/pic/000qk56z

Just...holy shit IQ.

[Green Spanner]

I'm now pretty sure IQ is trolling.

[Amake]

Calm down, blues. A zillion is not even a real number. The Earth's ecosystem is a billion years old at most. And more to the point, this system is very stable, and has shown itself able to adapt to changes much more drastic than anything we could hypothetically effect without nuclear weapons. I'm thinking the fear of climate change is really fear of change.

As to IPCC, it seems they don't have any picture of how the climate has shifted any further back than 700 AD: Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. That's not very conclusive.

But I suppose it would be prudent to expect worst, as much as it offends my optimistic sensibilities. Let's do something, if we can. Though I'm going to miss the warm winters of my youth.

[stefan]

Calm down, blues. A zillion is not even a real number. The Earth's ecosystem is a billion years old at most. And more to the point, this system is very stable, and has shown itself able to adapt to changes much more drastic than anything we could hypothetically effect without nuclear weapons. I'm thinking the fear of climate change is really fear of change.


yeah see the thing is that while the ecosystem is perfectly capable of adapting and surviving, its liable to adapt and survive in ways that leave humans unable to survive.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Calm down, blues. A zillion is not even a real number. The Earth's ecosystem is a billion years old at most. And more to the point, this system is very stable, and has shown itself able to adapt to changes much more drastic than anything we could hypothetically effect without nuclear weapons. I'm thinking the fear of climate change is really fear of change.
When that change can be shown to be universally bad then that is a proper fear. The high profile deniers don't even argue that warming would be catastrophically bad= they argue that we are not warming.
How has the Earth's ecosystem shown itself to adapt? I know of nothing where we can make this claim. When has it been catastrophically affected then reformed itself? Giant volcanoes and spacemeteors and things are nowhere near the scale of human activity.


As to IPCC, it seems they don't have any picture of how the climate has shifted any further back than 700 AD: That's not very conclusive.
Our climate records go back millions of years- it's not all about temperature.


But I suppose it would be prudent to expect worst, as much as it offends my optimistic sensibilities. Let's do something, if we can. Though I'm going to miss the warm winters of my youth.
Fuck it, IQ is defineatly trolling now.

[Sifright]

If he isn't trolling he is being horribly ignorant, Seriously global warming is literally the only thing in human history that effects the survival of our species as a complete whole sure that sounds overly dramatic but I know of nothing that will have as wide spread an impact.

[bluestarultor]

Yeah, IQ, you can cherry-pick the AR4 all you want, but a basic look at the information on just the first page shows that's exactly what you're doing.

I'm pretty much done here, because if you're NOT trolling, you show an incredibly poor understanding of the issue and I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue something you're willfully just going to deny.

[Mr.Bookworm]

IQ, I really don't think you're stupid. But you're opinion comes off as really stupid for a number of reasons that people in this thread have explained far better than I ever can.

So yeah.

[Ibian]

Keep in mind the IPCC is a political organization. The group that does the interpreting does not answer to the people whose work they interpret, nor does there seem to be much control to make sure their conclusions are correct. In short, pointing to the IPCC really just says you don't have a good understanding of the issues involved.

Also, waving your arms and calling someone a troll is still as unconvincing an argument as it is possible to make.

[Amake]

I have looked over what I assume is the most comprehensive and hopefully unbiased information available on the issue and admitted the practicality of your collective point. What more do you want? I'd promise to drive my car less, but I don't have a car. Because I care about the environment.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Personally, I've had enough snow out here. First storm hit us with 6 inches, then 12, and last week saw anywhere from 18-35 inches.

Quick, everyone get outside and idle your cars.

[bluestarultor]

Keep in mind the IPCC is a political organization. The group that does the interpreting does not answer to the people whose work they interpret, nor does there seem to be much control to make sure their conclusions are correct. In short, pointing to the IPCC really just says you don't have a good understanding of the issues involved.

Also, waving your arms and calling someone a troll is still as unconvincing an argument as it is possible to make.

Ahem: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and it is open to all member countries of UN and WMO. Governments are involved in the IPCC work as they can participate in the review process and in the IPCC plenary sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau and Chairperson are also elected in the plenary sessions.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

Please, don't just spout stuff. Yes, it's "political," in that it's run by some form of government, but it's not like the "corporate scientists" paid by big business. This is a NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING scientific body formed by the highest international authority on the planet, taking information from thousands of independent researchers of differing viewpoints worldwide and incorporating it into one central place.

If you have something better, by all means, I'd love to see it.



Edit: Also: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.htm


Observer Organizations

Sessions of the IPCC and the IPCC Working Groups are also attended by representatives of observer organizations. Any non-profit body or agency, whether national or international, governmental or intergovernmental, which is qualified in matters covered by the IPCC, may be admitted as an observer organization. A process had been established on the purpose - it takes approximately 6-8 months-, and the admittance is anyway subject to acceptance by the Panel. Organizations which already have an observer status with WMO; UNEP or UNFCCC are considered as observers of the IPCC if they request so, and subject to acceptance by the Panel. The IPCC has at present 28 observer organizations among UN bodies and organizations, and 52 non-UN observers (see list of IPCC observer organizations (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/observers-as-of-march-2010.pdf)).

You'll notice even OPEC is listed in the list of observer organizations, so the idea that nobody is watching them is simply not true. If anyone would want to quiet questions of global warming, it's someone selling fossil fuels.

[Bob The Mercenary]

This is a NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING scientific body formed by the highest international authority on the planet

I thought we discussed the Nobel Prize in another thread and how it has been transformed into a political tool rather than an award.

taking information from thousands of independent researchers of differing viewpoints worldwide and incorporating it into one central place.

That's another thing. It's possible (and I don't know how much of this is bullshit and how much isn't) that corralling all of this information into one place leaves it open to be reinterpreted and filtered to advance one agenda over another. Also, with these recent scandals (again, not sure how much is garbage) my faith in the IPCC has been somewhat shaken. Not so much by the body of those leaked letters, but by the excruciatingly slow response by their higher ups after they heard the story was going to break.

[bluestarultor]

I thought we discussed the Nobel Prize in another thread and how it has been transformed into a political tool rather than an award.

*sigh*

Okay, so what if it is? This is an organization under heavy review, as posted in my edit.

That's another thing. It's possible (and I don't know how much of this is bullshit and how much isn't) that corralling all of this information into one place leaves it open to be reinterpreted and filtered to advance one agenda over another. Also, with these recent scandals (again, not sure how much is garbage) my faith in the IPCC has been somewhat shaken. Not so much by the body of those leaked letters, but by the excruciatingly slow response by their higher ups after they heard the story was going to break.

Climategate a sham: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7140840/Global-warming-data-is-rock-solid.html

That said, no, it's under outside scientific review, just like everything else. Science HAS to be reviewed to be accepted. If it's not, it's not considered worth the paper it's printed on. This is why science is so slow to change, because any challenge to conventional wisdom tends to get shot down.

[Ibian]

blue, some sources other than the one under scrutiny would strengthen your case. What an organization says it is and what it actually does is not necessarily the same thing.

I'm also fairly certain the founders of the Nobel organization would be sad to see what it has become.

Anyway this all seems irrelevant to me given my first post in this thread which seems to have gone ignored. To recap: If we are in fact warming up the planet, reversing what we have done over the past few hundred years could have disastrous results on a scale far greater than anything the current trends are projecting. That's really what needs to be addressed first of all, all these other issues are just, well, red herrings i suppose, distractions.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Climategate a sham: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7140840/Global-warming-data-is-rock-solid.html

That's one of his colleagues saying "no, you're wrong. He's innocent."

And what about the raw temperature data they couldn't produce because they "lost it"?

[bluestarultor]

blue, some sources other than the one under scrutiny would strengthen your case. What an organization say it is and what it actually does is not necessarily the same thing.

So you're saying that just because a government says it runs a country doesn't mean it actually does? What about Sony saying it's an electronics corporation?

See, what I'm seeing is an utter lack of proof to the contrary. And I'm looking. I looked a few weeks ago for a research paper and I'm looking now. I have yet to find a reputable, impartial site that has anything against the IPCC or says it's not doing what it claims. If you can find one, by all means, provide it.

What you're essentially doing is putting the burden of proof on me, when YOU'RE the one making allegations. That doesn't do much for your case, either.




Edit: @Bob: No, that's the result of the investigation, which has cleared him. They looked into the issue, compared it to data elsewhere, and found no wrongdoing.

Also, put simply, with the lost data, there are many other sources to pull from. People are human. Shit happens. Data of a global scale is not going to be irreplaceable. You have the whole world to pull from. One lost source is not going to sink the ship.

[Ibian]

Fair enough. Let's set the issue of politicality aside for a moment. You say the IPCC are under review, and of course that's true in some manner. But the thing about reviews is that they come after the fact. In other words, the IPCC reports could, purely theoretically speaking of course, be fraudulent and the public would still accept them. If this were to happen, or has happened as some believe, it would take years to correct the perception of the masses. Like, say, the hockey stick. There are still many people who point to it as absolute proof that we are fucking things up, yet there are scientists as respected as the ones who made it that disagree.

So yes the IPCC is under outside review, but the question is if it is enough. I'm not personally convinced that it is as things stand.

[bluestarultor]

Fair enough. Let's set the issue of politicality aside for a moment. You say the IPCC are under review, and of course that's true in some manner. But the thing about reviews is that they come after the fact. In other words, the IPCC reports could, purely theoretically speaking of course, be fraudulent and the public would still accept them. If this were to happen, or has happened as some believe, it would take years to correct the perception of the masses. Like, say, the hockey stick. There are still many people who point to it as absolute proof that we are fucking things up, yet there are scientists as respected as the ones who made it that disagree.

So yes the IPCC is under outside review, but the question is if it is enough. I'm not personally convinced that it is as things stand.

With the news media and corporations all too happy to report even the tiniest issue they find with the argument for global warming, do you think they WOULDN'T jump on it and start a huge debacle?

Also, you really don't know how the scientific review process works, do you? A work has to be reviewed BEFORE it's published.

[Ibian]

No, i don't know the exact procedure of the IPCC process. But if it was as rigorous as you seem to believe, the amount of controversy would likely not be nearly as high as it is.

Anyway, this seems to be devolving into "he said she said", so i'm stepping back for the time being.

[Sifright]

Snort. Good one Ibian you understand ofcourse very little about the East anglia climate thing it's controversial because the vast majority of people know jack shit about statistical work and misinterpret what the emails contain good job. more importantly you misunderstand something more fundamental or are intentionally doing so. Every paper referenced by the IPCC has been peer reviewed to buggery and back these papers dont get published unless they are on very good grounds any way because no scientist wants to look like a fool.

[bluestarultor]

No, i don't know the exact procedure of the IPCC process. But if it was as rigorous as you seem to believe, the amount of controversy would likely not be nearly as high as it is.

Anyway, this seems to be devolving into "he said she said", so i'm stepping back for the time being.

Well, I'll respect your stepping out. But before you go, some final education:

1) It's not just the IPCC. Any scientific work has to be reviewed before it's published.

2) The controversy is coming from corporate sources who are out looking for anything they can latch onto and twist into a major problem. On the letters bit, did you know there's a site purporting to have the messages? I've never seen such falsified tripe in my life. Examples include quotes around words to make them look like they're in code, where if people were really being sneaky, they wouldn't put them there because it's too obvious. Add to that the entire site is flooded with gibberish and crap that's totally innocent to pad the numbers and you start to realize just how dumb it all is. Deniers will latch onto or fabricate anything they can to keep a controversy going.


And with that, I, too, will step out for now.

[Bob The Mercenary]

2) The controversy is coming from corporate sources who are out looking for anything they can latch onto and twist into a major problem. Deniers will latch onto or fabricate anything they can to keep a controversy going.

But that's exactly what the other side believes about your side. Everyone has something to gain from this, which makes it so hard for me to decide whether to believe the entire thing or not. I've read every press release, every graph, every blog about this subject and I still don't think I possess enough knowledge of it to make a decision either way.

You have one side saying it's a bunch of crap, the other saying the world's going to end in anywhere from fifty days to twenty years. It gets on my nerves. On the surface you'll understand if it sounds very alarmist to me.

[Funka Genocide]

wait wait wait...

didn't the story say those people were shot to death? with bullets?

What the fuck does this have to do with global climate change?

(Also, I think calling it global warming is probably a misnomer, or at least a less effective method of conveying the danger. Human Induced Climate Shift or something like that would probably be more effective.)

I'll admit that I haven't read or watched the linked articles or videos because I'm in a hurry, but that example you provided in writing just seems horribly out of context. I'll come back later and watch the video and whatnots.

[Sifright]

But that's exactly what the other side believes about your side. Everyone has something to gain from this, which makes it so hard for me to decide whether to believe the entire thing or not. I've read every press release, every graph, every blog about this subject and I still don't think I possess enough knowledge of it to make a decision either way.

You have one side saying it's a bunch of crap, the other saying the world's going to end in anywhere from fifty days to twenty years. It gets on my nerves. On the surface you'll understand if it sounds very alarmist to me.


waaa? No one any where that is reputable is saying that the effects of global warming will come to a head in 20 years what has been said is that the effects may well be to hard to reverse if things continue at current rate. Also the world won't end it will go on just fine it's just humanities place in said world will be pretty negliable as most of our food sources wont exist any more but it's something that will effect us more as time goes on.

[bluestarultor]

But that's exactly what the other side believes about your side. Everyone has something to gain from this, which makes it so hard for me to decide whether to believe the entire thing or not. I've read every press release, every graph, every blog about this subject and I still don't think I possess enough knowledge of it to make a decision either way.

You have one side saying it's a bunch of crap, the other saying the world's going to end in anywhere from fifty days to twenty years. It gets on my nerves. On the surface you'll understand if it sounds very alarmist to me.

*sigh*

Alright, coming back into the convo.

As Sif said, NOBODY is putting a ridiculously short timeframe on this. Just one that represents the event horizon.

The difference between the two sides is that one is funded by the governments of the world to see what's really going on and uses thousands of reputable and respected men and women as sources for their information, while the other is funded by large corporations who feel that dealing with the problem is going to hurt their profits and have paid people to argue everything from warming itself being a lie to carbon dioxide being good for plant growth (actually, it's not, as it's already passing the point where they're able to compensate for it all, and the oceans aren't absorbing as much as we'd hoped, either) to the data being false.

Now, just at face level, who's more likely to be the ones with the selfish agendas? I'll put money on it being the corporations.



Edit: Hell, if you look at it, what's the HARM of reducing our carbon emissions? Cleaner air? Other than money, I dare you to find a good reason NOT to try to help the environment.

[Ibian]

Other than money? As in "who needs money" or "rich people are evil and should be hoist by their own petards"?

Also, your side has plenty of motivation for lying about the whole thing. I'll spell it out if you want, but otherwise i am rapidly losing interest.

[Seil]

wait wait wait...

didn't the story say those people were shot to death? with bullets?

What the fuck does this have to do with global climate change?

(Also, I think calling it global warming is probably a misnomer, or at least a less effective method of conveying the danger. Human Induced Climate Shift or something like that would probably be more effective.)

I'll admit that I haven't read or watched the linked articles or videos because I'm in a hurry, but that example you provided in writing just seems horribly out of context. I'll come back later and watch the video and whatnots.

It was a story told that put forth problems caused by climate change other than what's commonly told/viewed. I thought it interesting.

Okay, from what I remember from science class, scientific progresss goes boink. Wait, no - a scientist has a hypothesis, so he devises an experiment to test it. He writes down his predictions, then performs the experiment, writing down the process and the materials used. Then he submits it for review. In order for his experiment to prove/disprove something, it must be a repeatable experiment - meaning that other scientists should be able to do the exact same thing the previous scientist did and get the same results. Then it gets published in science text books blah blah blah.

I think, Blues, if you could list any of the five or six hundred experiments that prove that mankind is affecting climate on a global scale that will result negatively for everything and everyone, it would help your case.

Ibian, if you were a little more accepting than "All of this is dumb because I don't buy into the evidence that supports the argument opposite mine, and I doubt the credibility of those providing the evidence." What proof would cause you to concede? Every scientist walking over to your house and saying "We're negatively impacting our environment with disastrous consequences and we need to do something about it?"

[Sifright]

Your side Ibian really? Are you truly going to try and polarize this? I take it your firmly on the camp of the denialists then or to put it another way on the side of this can't possibly be true because it hurts my bottom line and thus i reject your reality and substitute it with my own right?

[Mirai Gen]

But that's exactly what the other side believes about your side. Everyone has something to gain from this, which makes it so hard for me to decide whether to believe the entire thing or not. I've read every press release, every graph, every blog about this subject and I still don't think I possess enough knowledge of it to make a decision either way.

You have one side saying it's a bunch of crap, the other saying the world's going to end in anywhere from fifty days to twenty years. It gets on my nerves. On the surface you'll understand if it sounds very alarmist to me.

As it was said in the last few threads we had about this - I advise looking into the Godhand party - most of the time the people who say that there isn't any sort of global warming are (sarcastic fingerquotes) "Researchers" who have been paid by the oil companies to spread misinformation and lies about the issue, IE Exxon think-tanks.

Just about every scientist involved with this research has their head screwed on properly and has said "There is a problem building that's started around the industrial revolution and it isn't going away, and it's getting worse and we need to have done something about it during WWII."

If we stop consuming fossil fuels and try to repair some of the damage we've done companies like Exxon and the oil industry as a whole loses money. Meanwhile there is absolutely no reason for these scientists to be biased, since none of them gain a profit for agreeing with the hundred million studies before it. Every single one of them is looking for the benefit of the human species; the oil company is looking to get another jewel encrusted on their lapels.

I understand skepticism but the alternative you're suggesting is, as Kurosen said before, "to faff about uselessly and hope everything works okay." That is a fucking terrible plan.

EDIT: Also...
Everyone has something to gain from this,
How, exactly? Enlighten me what people gain for looking at Save the Earth pamphlets and putting Plant a Tree specials at the end of Sesame Street again?

EDIT EDIT: A pre-emptive reply
Bob Gore sure got a lot of money for his film An Inconvenient Truth!
That was almost five fucking years ago and it's the only big name that comes up time and time again. Preventing the world from getting assraped into oblivion by carbon fuel emissions is not 'big business', no matter how hard you try and paint Gore like a blood-sucking oil CEO.

[Ibian]

Ibian, if you were a little more accepting than "All of this is dumb because I don't buy into the evidence that supports the argument opposite mine, and I doubt the credibility of those providing the evidence." What proof would cause you to concede? Every scientist walking over to your house and saying "We're negatively impacting our environment with disastrous consequences and we need to do something about it?"
If you would care to read my posts, i have already more or less stated my position. An ice age, which is what could happen provided the global warming people are right, would be much worse than the current worst realistic projections as things stand. It's not a matter of "is this happening?" for me, because the question is irrelevant. We do not want to reverse what effects we have had, if any.

[Mirai Gen]

An ice age, which is what could happen provided the global warming people are right, would be much worse than the current worst realistic projections as things stand.

...we might un-warm the earth into an Ice Age?

CO2 is doing good for the environment is your honest position on this?!

Are you fucking serious.

[Ibian]

I'm saying, an ice age would be worse and that is a very real risk provided the global warming people are right. And yes i am very serious about that.

[Mirai Gen]

We can't stop consuming fossil fuels because we might accidentally overshoot and freeze the earth.

There are parts of the area where people are going through what seems like an endless drought with no sustainable food, but accidentally triggering an ice age through overshooting is the real concern.

Truly you have taught me wonders this day, Ibian. Wonders.

[Ibian]

The hypothesis goes that we have warmed up the planet. Some people want to cool it back down. Cool it down too much - this could simply be to the levels it had before we did anything of consequence - and anyone who has studied the planets history knows what could happen.

The implications are what they are. It's not my theory, i'm just working with what i'm given.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I'm not trying to start a fight, but some people tell me there's droughts everywhere. Then others tell me the reason we are getting so much snow this year is because the extra heat is causing more water to evaporate and condense over land. Some say more snow than usual is global warming's fault, then others say too little snow is also global warming's fault.

[Mirai Gen]

The hypothesis goes that we have warmed up the planet. Some people want to cool it back down. Cool it down too much - this could simply be to the levels it had before we did anything of consequence - and anyone who has studied the planets history knows what could happen.
...Okay, let me explain this again then.

We are not finding ways to 'cool down' the earth, we are trying to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels that are creating the environmental damage that is resulting in global warming.

Your theory basically states that if a house is too warm to the point of giving the people inside heatstroke within the hour, we can't turn the thermostat down because then it might get too cold and freeze the pipes. So before doing anything we need to properly see what will happen.

You understand how ridiculous this sounds?
I'm not trying to start a fight, but some people tell me there's droughts everywhere. Then others tell me the reason we are getting so much snow this year is because the extra heat is causing more water to evaporate and condense over land. Some say more snow than usual is global warming's fault, then others say too little snow is also global warming's fault.
Global warming is not just the fact that the earth is getting warmer - it is the climate and natural order of heat/cold getting thrown out of whack.

I'd come up with an example but I'm not that good at it and I'm sure SMB or Sithdarth can do better.

[Ibian]

If you just wanna stop further warming then we have no issue. However, there are very real plans to actively cool things down. Removing co2 from the air by various means, creating artificial cloud cover, and other far more radical plans than that. It's these people i take issue with.

And yah, turn the heat off in a house in the middle of winter and the pipes just might freeze. Cold countries suck like that. Shuffling oil home on a daily basis one quarter barrel at a time is not fun at all.

[bluestarultor]

The hypothesis goes that we have warmed up the planet. Some people want to cool it back down. Cool it down too much - this could simply be to the levels it had before we did anything of consequence - and anyone who has studied the planets history knows what could happen.

The implications are what they are. It's not my theory, i'm just working with what i'm given.

Okay, to put this bluntly, that idea is extreme to the point of being positively unfathomable. You're saying that working against carbon emissions, which are going to take a LONG time to get back under control, is going to deep freeze the planet? I'm sorry, Earth is a mite larger than that. To fully reverse all the warming we've done and overshoot it multiple times would take an error of such gross proportion that the entire planet would deserve to die to spare all other life in the universe from our stupidity.

I'm not trying to start a fight, but some people tell me there's droughts everywhere. Then others tell me the reason we are getting so much snow this year is because the extra heat is causing more water to evaporate and condense over land. Some say more snow than usual is global warming's fault, then others say too little snow is also global warming's fault.

And both would be true, because it deals in wind and water currents, as well. It's not just a matter of warming, but also includes those currents, precipitation, overall temperature, effect on plants and animals, sea level, and likely other factors I'm not thinking of. Temperature is not in a bubble. It has broad effects on an entire web of global systems.

[Ibian]

I'm not trying to start a fight, but some people tell me there's droughts everywhere. Then others tell me the reason we are getting so much snow this year is because the extra heat is causing more water to evaporate and condense over land. Some say more snow than usual is global warming's fault, then others say too little snow is also global warming's fault.
From one of the links in the first post:
George also told us that 2.1 billion people are going to be in water stress because of global warming. That’s true. He failed to tell you that studies by Nicholls also show that if there was no global warming there would be 3.6 billion people in water stress. Actually, global warming in that particular area means that there will be less water stress, not more. Why? Because there will be more water vapour in the atmosphere.
It's complex. Quite frankly we don't know enough and people on both sides are lying for a variety of reasons, or simply unable to properly spread the information to the right people (which is difficult under the best of circumstances).

[Ibian]

Okay, to put this bluntly, that idea is extreme to the point of being positively unfathomable.
So is the idea that a catastrophic percentage of animal and plant species will die, or that we humans will be unable to adapt to whatever changes might come. Quite frankly, this hysterical paranoia is one of the bigger reasons to be a skeptic.

[bluestarultor]

So is the idea that a catastrophic percentage of animal and plant species will die, or that we humans will be unable to adapt to whatever changes might come. Quite frankly, this hysterical paranoia is one of the bigger reasons to be a skeptic.

It WOULD be, if that was actually what anyone was saying, and I'm pretty sure we touched on this.

Humans WILL be able to adapt to whatever we end up with. We have such amenities as air conditioning.

Sadly, many plant and animal species will not, and those are what are currently part of what's propping up our cushy lifestyles right now. Nobody is getting cooked like lobsters in twenty years, but it may be too late to reverse the change. Global warming isn't about a giant wave of heat blasting over the planet. It's about the temperature slowly rising and humanity at some point being unable to fix the mistake and watch as the world slowly ceases to be the one we're familiar with. Sea levels will rise, plants will die off, as will animals as their natural foods leave them.

Global warming is less like a bomb and more like a disease, and I'd rather apply the remedy to it before it's too late.



Your problem is that you're sensationalizing this. Every example you've provided is almost comically extreme, when nobody is dealing in those terms. I think you need to step back and actually look at what everyone is saying.

[Sifright]

Whoa.. such blatant trolling. (to clarify ibian is the one i think is trolling... not that it should need it.)

[Amake]

Replace "Global warming" with "Jews" and this thread might sound like it's 1935 all over again. Everything bad that happens can be traced back to global warming, and we're going to have to kill six billion people so that the rest can live! Okay, so six billion instead of six million, that's a lot of interest. But that's global warming's fault. Global warming owns all the banks and all the big business, have you noticed that?

[Bob The Mercenary]

Whoa.. such blatant trolling. (to clarify ibian is the one i think is trolling... not that it should need it.)

As much as everyone's been accusing him of trolling. It's really really really not trolling. As lots and lots of people share his opinions...most of them.

[Sifright]

Either s/he is trolling or else is employing a five year olds understanding of science... the basic premise really isn't complicated.

[bluestarultor]

As much as everyone's been accusing him of trolling. It's really really really not trolling. As lots and lots of people share his opinions...most of them.

I REALLY highly doubt that most people think we're saving ourselves from an ice age.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I REALLY highly doubt that most people think we're saving ourselves from an ice age.

I thought the "most of them" referred to that part. But honestly, many many people think there are too many people wanting to push political agendas that they actually influenced the scientific community to go along with them.

It's not that difficult to see where he's coming from without referring to it as "trolling".

[Mirai Gen]

If you just wanna stop further warming then we have no issue. However, there are very real plans to actively cool things down. Removing co2 from the air by various means, creating artificial cloud cover, and other far more radical plans than that. It's these people i take issue with.
That's because we've already done enough damage that maybe some drastic measures are in order to get it under control since it's become blatantly obvious that the government isn't going to do jack shit about cutting off the fat bloodsucking slob that is the oil companies.

If we can't turn down the heat we'll go get fans and ice cubes, you understand?

And yah, turn the heat off in a house in the middle of winter and the pipes just might freeze. Cold countries suck like that. Shuffling oil home on a daily basis one quarter barrel at a time is not fun at all.

Wooooooooooooooosh, point going right over your head.

But no seriously let's all go back to how we might freeze the earth if we stop warming it up. Because the Earth didn't already have carbon emissions to counteract that which resulted in the ecosystem it totally had up until we created gasoline and fucked it up.

Seriously man you're just grasping at straws. I don't know what the fuck kind of excuse "What if we overdo it?" is when the CO2 emissions are such a dire problem but it's sure as shit a limp one.

[Ibian]

Since the current topics seem to have petered out i have a question. Recently there was a meeting in Copenhagen by the worlds leaders to try to reach a new and improved Kyoto agreement. I have not seen anything about that in any news outside my country, and i'm wondering if any of you have heard anything about it?

[Mirai Gen]

FOREIGN WHORES!!!

[Ryanderman]

I don't agree with Ibian's posts, and I'm not trying to argue on his side, but (there had to be a but) what if the greenhouse emissions from humanity are covering up what would otherwise be a natural ice age? If that were the case, then theoretically, if we were to eliminate our emissions, it could allow the Earth to settle back into it's natural cycle, producing the ice age Ibian describes? Would there be a way to know if we should, our impact aside, be in one right now?

[Sifright]

Yea the topic really hasn't petered out at all.. Point in fact global warming is occurring you deny said fact and back it up with "we shouldn't do anything about it because we might freeze the planet" Seriously where do people come up with this shit? is it because in the 1960's the media ran a bullshit story about global cooling based on exactly one scientific paper which the author retracted a few months later because how he manipulated the stats was completely wrong is it all based on that? If that really is the majority position on global warming where your from bob I want to hang my head in shame.


Edit:
There wouldn't be another ice age for at least a couple of thousand years if your going by the milankovitch cycles

[Mirai Gen]

I don't agree with Ibian's posts, and I'm not trying to argue on his side, but (there had to be a but) what if the greenhouse emissions from humanity are covering up what would otherwise be a natural ice age? If that were the case, then theoretically, if we were to eliminate our emissions, it could allow the Earth to settle back into it's natural cycle, producing the ice age Ibian describes? Would there be a way to know if we should, our impact aside, be in one right now?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/1000.gif

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/1880-2005.gif

Greenland 1992 vs 2002
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/GreenlandMelt1992.jpghttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/GreenlandMelt2002.jpg

If we actually were in an 'ice age' and we're counteracting it, then we've drastically overshot. The target wasn't even in the same country as us, is what I'm saying.

EDIT: I don't even want to bother with him anymore.

If Ibian isn't Godhand, or at least a Godhand Jr., then I have a hat I'm going to eat.

[Ibian]

I don't agree with Ibian's posts, and I'm not trying to argue on his side, but (there had to be a but) what if the greenhouse emissions from humanity are covering up what would otherwise be a natural ice age? If that were the case, then theoretically, if we were to eliminate our emissions, it could allow the Earth to settle back into it's natural cycle, producing the ice age Ibian describes? Would there be a way to know if we should, our impact aside, be in one right now?
Historically speaking, we have been going through cycles of roughly 90000 years of cold and 10000 years of warmth in 100000 year cycles. These are not exact numbers, they can and do vary by hundreds or thousands of years, and we don't know what causes them to start or end. So far as i know there is no way to know if we should be in one had we not done anything, but the possibility that we could be exists (again, provided the global warming people are correct).

Basically, if we are having an impact then reversing that impact could be quite risky and potentially devastating. And if we don't, trying to reverse it is money out the window.

For reference, my dad is an archaeologist and knowing this sort of thing is part of his job. I have been leaning about it my entire life.

[Bob The Mercenary]

It's just that, how are all of you so 100% absolutely positively sure that we are definitely causing this impending doom? I've heard arguments, plenty of them, for the opposing side. I've also heard plenty in the affirmative. And frankly, I've never been so confused.

You just seem so sure in your position that you're attacking anyone else as uninformed or an idiot.

[Sifright]

Historically speaking, we have been going through cycles of roughly 90000 years of cold and 10000 years of warmth in 1000000 year cycles. These are not exact numbers, they can and do vary by hundreds or thousands of years, and we don't know what causes them to start or end. So far as i know there is no way to know if we should be in one had we not done anything, but the possibility that we could be exists (again, provided the global warming people are correct).

Basically, if we are having an impact then reversing that impact could be quite risky and potentially devastating. And if we don't, trying to reverse it is money out the window.

For reference, my dad is an archaeologist and knowing this sort of thing is part of his job. I have been leaning about it my entire life.

milankovitch cycles milankovitch cycles. It's well known, as for your father being a archaeologist it really means very little. One Archaeology doesn't imply any knowledge of how gases interact with atmosphere and two it's an argument from authority which is a great example of defective induction.

[Green Spanner]

For reference, my dad is an archaeologist and knowing this sort of thing is part of his job. I have been leaning about it my entire life.

So he has two relevant degrees, yes?

[Mirai Gen]

It's just that, how are all of you so 100% absolutely positively sure that we are definitely causing this impending doom?
His entire argument boils down to "But that would cause impending doom too!"

You just seem so sure in your position that you're attacking anyone else as uninformed or an idiot.

Look as it's been said before I am not going to insult anyone who's willing to at least debate to me that global warming may or may not exist. They'd be wrong but I'm 100% willing to talk this out with them.

The last thing I'm going to do is debate to someone who sticks fingers in their ears and ignores every bit of data I throw at their head. If I say "This chart says there isn't an ice age and we're causing a huge problem," he says, "Well that doesn't prove anything."

I'm not ignoring him because he's against my position - I'm arguing against him because there's no blood coming out of that stone.

For reference, my dad is an archaeologist and knowing this sort of thing is part of his job. I have been leaning about it my entire life.
So he has two relevant degrees, yes?
I told you. He's either Godhand or Godhand Jr.

And with that in mind...
http://pics.livejournal.com/miraigen/pic/000xk0a3

[Ibian]

milankovitch cycles milankovitch cycles. It's well known, as for your father being a archaeologist it really means very little. One Archaeology doesn't imply any knowledge of how gases interact with atmosphere and two it's an argument from authority which is a great example of defective induction.
And the IPCC is what? Come on now.

[Ryanderman]

Compelling Pcitures
I wasn't trying to support his argument. I had just been looking at his claim of freezing the earth, and tried to think of any way that could make sense. My previous post was the only one I could come up with.

[Mirai Gen]

I wasn't trying to support his argument. I had just been looking at his claim of freezing the earth, and tried to think of any way that could make sense. My previous post was the only one I could come up with.

Yeah I wasn't directing it at you, at least not cruelly. The post was purely to provide the evidence you were asking for, and I was trying to keep it civilly relaxed around you.

No worries - we're cool.

[Ibian]

Incidentally, there is good evidence that Greenland was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. It involves archaeology. And vikings.

Cue the pointing and laughing.

[Thadius]

Ahah.

Hahah.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Okay give me a moment here to catch my breath. See, whenever I hear arguments about 'global warming,' I laugh. Whenever I hear things about 'climate change,' I chuckle. Mostly because everyone tacks on 'man-made' at the end.

Which I think is total and utter complete bullshit.

Ah! Please put down the keyboard, I will explain myself before you angrily quote me and troll me.

See, mankind has always placed itself at the center of everything. When we were beginning to learn about the stars and how the planets move? We were the CENTER of the universe. When we learned of other continents? On our maps, the colonized world/landmass that was issuing the maps was always the CENTER. And once we began learning of the slow change in temperature? Clearly mankind was the CENTER of the problem. Mankind's always had a bit of a swelled head, you see.

I would like you to, for a moment, consider the mayfly. It lives in its adult form for only a day. If you were to observe one land on a tree, and somehow possessed the means to communicate with it, and asked it, 'Is the tree alive?', it would reply, 'No, I've been here all my life and it hasn't done anything!'

How long have we been on this lump of rock and dirt?

How long have we been watching the temperature?

NOT NEARLY LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE THESE CONCLUSIONS THAT WE ARE THE CAUSE.

And of course you have to consider that anybody gathering data is suspect, either because he's being paid for his data, or is skewing it so that he WILL be paid for his data as it aligns to someone's needs.

Climate change, I will agree, is a natural thing the earth does. REGARDLESS OF IF WE'RE HERE OR NOT. I will also agree that mankind has not been helpful to the environment on a whole. It's not something we do well, apparently.

But to connect the two? Requires more than a leap of faith. It requires a leap out of a goddamn airplane without a parachute at 30,000 feet.

Normally I'd sit still and just watch the fireworks between two opposing parties. I love it when mankind can't make up its mind, really I do. It's like watching a dissociative personality disorder person fight himself!

But this issue is one of my pet peeves. Why?

Because it's been going on too goddamn long and has too much controversy around it.

I'm going to make a disk. A disk that contains all the global warming arguments that ever were. I will save it and put it in a time capsule and tell mankind to open it in 500 years.

If global warming is still the issue, then they'll know that it's been around a real goddamn long time.

However. If like I suspect global cooling is the issue, and the words 'climate change' are still floating around?

My ghost will laugh at everyone. And the words 'man-made' will be retired from 'climate change.'

[bluestarultor]

Incidentally, there is good evidence that Greenland was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. It involves archaeology. And vikings.

Cue the pointing and laughing.

Funny to hear this from a kid who has no idea on the scientific review process and thinks that by failing to continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we'll cause an ice age.

Really, if your dad IS an archaeologist in a relevant area, it's pretty apparent you're not getting info from him. Because these are basics.



Thad: I think it's pretty strong evidence over the course of 1300 years that we're seeing warming caused after we started getting really into burning shit. To put it this way, records dating back to 700 C.E. as was mentioned earlier in the thread gives us plenty of info. Like the inclusion of the Industrial Revolution. Just saying, we humans have been around for quite a while, but we've only just very recently gotten into fossil fuels and our data predates that.

[Sifright]

naw blues you must be tripping global warming is obviously a sham right it's just big climate pumping out misinformation so that they can keep making trillions of the status quo.

[Ibian]

Funny to hear this from a kid who has no idea on the scientific review process and thinks that by failing to continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we'll cause an ice age.

Really, if your dad IS an archaeologist in a relevant area, it's pretty apparent you're not getting info from him. Because these are basics.

That's another thing. You have been talking to me this entire time as if i'm a ten year old with no idea how science works. Also, kid. You make far too many assumptions. And you don't care what aforementioned evidence looks like, you simply decided that i'm wrong.

I think i'm wasting my time here.

[bluestarultor]

naw blues you must be tripping global warming is obviously a sham right it's just big climate pumping out misinformation so that they can keep making trillions of the status quo.

Ya, I know! It's like, totally awesome that they're all up in big biznez' shit making them lose money! Down with the suits, up with the trees! :cool:



Edit:
That's another thing. You have been talking to me this entire time as if i'm a ten year old with no idea how science works. Also, kid. You make far too many assumptions. And you don't care what aforementioned evidence looks like, you simply decided that i'm wrong.

I think i'm wasting my time here.

Clearly, you are, because you lack even a fundamental understanding of some of the issues. Just saying, you're throwing out such extreme positions it's ridiculous, and I can't possibly take that seriously. And, uh, WHAT evidence? Did I miss you actually posting some? I'd love to see it, honestly.

[Sifright]

I'm trying to find a paper that was written back in 1890 or so it references carbonic acid in the air (as a indicator of co2 as that was the only way to measure it at the time *as i recall*) in the paper a physicist made a prediction that should co2 rise by x amount of PPM that temp increases would go up a degree. If i can find I'll link it here because its the first paper i know of that predicts the effects of co2 and basically it means the time since then has been the experiment to prove or disprove his hypothesis.

[Thadius]

Thad: I think it's pretty strong evidence over the course of 1300 years that we're seeing warming caused after we started getting really into burning shit. To put it this way, records dating back to 700 C.E. as was mentioned earlier in the thread gives us plenty of info. Like the inclusion of the Industrial Revolution. Just saying, we humans have been around for quite a while, but we've only just very recently gotten into fossil fuels and our data predates that.

Ah. So my time capsule needs to be set for about 700 years then instead of 500. Gotcha.

[Sithdarth]

Thad we've got climate data stretching back thousands of years from ice cores, fossil records, and various other sources that indicate the kind of rapid changes we're seeing are not natural. (Except for maybe under extreme circumstances like the end of the last Snowball Earth event and last I checked the equator wasn't covered in ice.)

Here is some suggested reading for everyone. (http://books.google.com/books?id=CeGnUwL3zawC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+scientific+attitude&source=bl&ots=sWEJzdyJSM&sig=nT1yxiZq82yi1Eh4GYnxFti3UhQ&hl=en&ei=OwOTS-ClCNHZlAf0wdD6AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false) I'd check your local library but it is well worth buying. It not only tells the story of how anthropological global climate change became an accepted theory it also details very well how research is done, how scientific facts become accepted, how they change, and how science as a whole is effected by various societal pressures.

As for Bob if he's still listening. There are two main reasons why I eventually fell on the side of global climate change. First, I accept that even if I don't fully understand the science the people that actually did the science do. I trust an individual climatologist to know about what the climate is doing exactly as much as I trust an individual doctor to know what is going on in my body. Which is to say more than basically anyone else. In this particular case we have just about every climatologist ever saying we're the problem. That would be like getting a couple thousand second opinions on a cancer diagnosis that confirmed it and maybe a 100 that disagreed. You damn well bet I'd undergo chemotherapy. Second, there is nothing to be gained from not cutting back and becoming more green. At best people keep making money on oil until it runs out and we have to switch anyway. Might as well be now regardless of climate change. Further, beyond just climate change the search for oil and fossil fuels is destroying ecosystems, communities, and to no small extent global stability. Climate change is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and increased its density to the point that it collapsed inward into a singularity. Oil has been bad for us pretty much since we first started using it. Now its running out and there really is no way to make it not bad for us.

[Mirai Gen]

Ah. So my time capsule needs to be set for about 700 years then instead of 500. Gotcha.

IGNORANCE VS SCIENCE

WHO WILL WIN

[Kim]

Even if, by some crazy wacked out chance, climate change or humans having an affect on climate change or whatever turns out to not be the case, there is still no excuse for not working to improve our energy sources and whatnot. Nothing bad comes from creating more efficient vehicles and energy sources, especially ones that pollute the environment less. Fuck, there are days in some Utah places where they have to cancel school that day because the air pollution is so bad. I think once you've reached that point, any argument against fixing all these goddamn pollution problems can rightly and promptly go fuck itself in the ass.

[Nikose Tyris]

I have almost no understanding of this topic but I would like to learn more. Could someone provide me with relevant fact-supported links/documents?

[bluestarultor]

I have almost no understanding of this topic but I would like to learn more. Could someone provide me with relevant fact-supported links/documents?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

The IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report. Basically the highest current authority on the matter.

[Seil]

Climate change is happening. The trick is, it has always been happening, long before we started influencing our surroundings.

And that's the basic problem with these types of discussions. When people speak of "climate change", it is almost always implied to mean "man-made climate change", and almost as often "it's bad".

This is your first post and I have to say I concede this point. The global climate has changed pretty drastically over the history of the world. But it hasn't shifted as suddenly as it has in the last fifty to one hundred years since man started doing stuff.

Blues is right in saying "It's not that we're all gonna get a little bit hotter and have to start investing in sunblock. It's that because the temperature of the entire earth is increasing, many plants and animals who require a cooler temperature to grow, will die. And the animals that ate those as food will thin out - and even though humans can survive because we can effectively change and manipulate our surroundings with things like air conditioners and junk, we'll be negatively affected as our food sources die, trees begin to wither and water begins to disappear."

But is this warming man-made? (http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html) Carbon dioxide has been rising since the time of James Watt (1736 – 1819), inventor of the auto-controlled steam engine that helped jump-start the industrial revolution. Since then, coal, oil and natural gas have powered our economies. Hydro-power and nuclear power are comparatively minor contributors to energy needs (excepting certain countries such as Norway and France).

Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year. In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually. In Sweden (with a similar standard of living as the US) the carbon output is less than two tons of carbon per person per year.

James Tyndall (Courtesy: NASA)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 – 1891) and the effect was calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 – 1927).

Yes, I agree that climate changes on the earth and has been changing for millions of years. Longer than we've been here. But that doesn't change the fact that since we've been here, it has spiked more in a shorter period than those changes previous.

Historically speaking, we have been going through cycles of roughly 90000 years of cold and 10000 years of warmth in 100000 year cycles. These are not exact numbers, they can and do vary by hundreds or thousands of years, and we don't know what causes them to start or end. So far as i know there is no way to know if we should be in one had we not done anything, but the possibility that we could be exists (again, provided the global warming people are correct).

Basically, if we are having an impact then reversing that impact could be quite risky and potentially devastating. And if we don't, trying to reverse it is money out the window.

For reference, my dad is an archaeologist and knowing this sort of thing is part of his job. I have been leaning about it my entire life.

Like I said, we're pretty sure we're changing something because of the way temperature's been spiking since we started polluting the planet. There are risks to not doing things, as I've said previously.

And also? My dad's a psychiatrist. Does that mean I can argue competently about psychiatric medicine? No - it means my dad can. I have to read up, broaden my horizons and learn about things before I talk. By the way - what makes your dad, one man - less corrupt/more plausible then, say any previous scientists or organizations listed?

If you would care to read my posts, i have already more or less stated my position. An ice age, which is what could happen provided the global warming people are right, would be much worse than the current worst realistic projections as things stand. It's not a matter of "is this happening?" for me, because the question is irrelevant. We do not want to reverse what effects we have had, if any.
The hypothesis goes that we have warmed up the planet. Some people want to cool it back down. Cool it down too much - this could simply be to the levels it had before we did anything of consequence - and anyone who has studied the planets history knows what could happen.

The implications are what they are. It's not my theory, i'm just working with what i'm given.

The global temperature is increasing. In order for there to be an ice age, the global temperature needs to decrease. You're saying that if we do something about climate change now, we might over-shoot and cause an ice age. It depends on what we do, how we do it and when we do it. As for "Anyone who has studied [Earth's] history," I'm guessing your dad? Because you're not listing any sources from anything here, and your argument is basically "We shouldn't try to do anything about this because our solution might work too well, and the temperature of the Earth would decrease to the point of a new Ice Age.

[Azisien]

Climate change was a well accepted theory before it became painfully politicized. Which would have been...somewhat early in my first degree?

And I have to admit, I'm tired of listening to both sides, because they're both being kind of fundamentalist due to...well...for the same reason this thread reads the way it does, but times a million, over the course of 5 years.

[Thadius]

Am I saying pollution by mankind doesn't exist? Fuck no, I'd be a moron to say that we've kept the seas pure and the skies clean.

Am I saying that better energy sources would be a bad thing? Again, no I'm not. Hell, everything is going to run out eventually. Basic entropy there, NOTHING will last forever.

But to claim that we're causing climate change on an epic scale, big enough to destroy life on the planet as we know it, or even our way of living?

...I guess we'll see now won't we? But I still stand fast that we're giving ourselves too much credit.

What I'd like to do (Or rather the madboy part of me) is somehow set up two planets. One exactly like ours, and one without the means to pollute their world as epically as we did. Hell even a whole string of planets that scale down and up with varying factors would be ideal! But again, madboy talking.

[Loyal]

I'm pretty sure "commandeering entire planets for the scientific method" falls somewhere under "too large an ego for our own good".

[Thadius]

Well I wouldn't use planets with life on them! That'd just be inhumane! And clearly I couldn't see the end of the experiment, it'd take eons!

...Unless I figured out time-travel...

Aw great. Now my train of thought has derailed, caught on fire, exploded, and any survivors are taking shelter elsewhere.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Seriously guys, this was pretty much scientific fact since the late 70s. It's only become "iffy" since the oil companies starting buying off scientists recentely. We are not giving ourselvees too much credit- the rate of change of temperature since our industrialisation is unheard of,as is our production of greenhouse gases.My favourite argument is the old- we don't know what greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will do-but we do because the earth already has a greenhouse effect-we are just enhancing it.

[Funka Genocide]

Fun Fact: Calling people idiots is a great way to influence their beliefs!

(I mean I know I've called hypothetical people idiots, but none of you fine upstanding trolls! If you can't agree but you know you're right, then just be right, what the fuck do you get out of insulting someone directly? Or at least go the whole nine and call someone a cocksucker, I want to see some fireworks.)

EDIT: Started watching the video, and man that Munk fellow is one scary old motherfucker, even though its a video I feel like I need to sit down and shut up until he's done talking.

[Seil]

(I mean I know I've called hypothetical people idiots, but none of you fine upstanding trolls! If you can't agree but you know you're right, then just be right, what the fuck do you get out of insulting someone directly? Or at least go the whole nine and call someone a cocksucker, I want to see some fireworks.)

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[bluestarultor]

Am I saying pollution by mankind doesn't exist? Fuck no, I'd be a moron to say that we've kept the seas pure and the skies clean.

Am I saying that better energy sources would be a bad thing? Again, no I'm not. Hell, everything is going to run out eventually. Basic entropy there, NOTHING will last forever.

But to claim that we're causing climate change on an epic scale, big enough to destroy life on the planet as we know it, or even our way of living?

...I guess we'll see now won't we? But I still stand fast that we're giving ourselves too much credit.

What I'd like to do (Or rather the madboy part of me) is somehow set up two planets. One exactly like ours, and one without the means to pollute their world as epically as we did. Hell even a whole string of planets that scale down and up with varying factors would be ideal! But again, madboy talking.

Seriously guys, this was pretty much scientific fact since the late 70s. It's only become "iffy" since the oil companies starting buying off scientists recentely. We are not giving ourselvees too much credit- the rate of change of temperature since our industrialisation is unheard of,as is our production of greenhouse gases.My favourite argument is the old- we don't know what greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will do-but we do because the earth already has a greenhouse effect-we are just enhancing it.

Pretty much this, Thad. We're pumping literal TONS of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every day. And the atmosphere isn't that big. This may not be wholly accurate, but bear with me. Get a globe. Got it? Does it have some sort of lacquer on it? That's the atmosphere.

Now consider that places in China produced so much smog until recently that the sun wasn't even visible. That's from the particle emissions, but with particle emissions come greenhouse gas emissions. It's all from burning fossil fuel.

You have to also consider that it's not just a new thing. We've been doing this for years. Many years. The effect has been building over a long period of time and has recently spiked, looking in the period since the Industrial Revolution. And it's continuing to climb as more nations industrialize.

People seem to think of global warming as an immediate and extreme problem, when it isn't. It's a very gradual change made over many years that only now is coming to a point of no return. We don't need to fix it now so much as begin to reverse course and make changes. It's not a quick fix kind of problem. It's going to take a long time to reverse, but we're both at the point where we need to start and have the technology where we can.

This is really the ultimate opportunity for us. The cards have all been dealt and they're all in our favor. But with big business acting as the house, they don't want us to because it'll dent their profits. The question is really whether we want to play our cards, reap the benefits, cash out, and invest for the future of all or if we want to let the house win, take the money, and run, long-term be damned.

[Mirai Gen]

There's no point, Blues.

Global warming doesn't exist.

If it does exist then we're obviously not doing anything wrong.

It's far better to just be totally ignorant, plug your fingers in your ear, and recite utterly limp-wristed unresearched bullshit that lets you be smugly self-righteous in the future, because that's more important than the possible continuation of the human species.

If it isn't relevant degrees and FOREIGN WHORES!!!, then it's a possible self-induced Ice Age or natural climate change we have nothing to do with, because CO2 doesn't exist and greenhouse gases are just lies made up by the government.

[Meister]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
Understanding NPF debate threads in one easy panel.

[Mirai Gen]

Good thing we got rid of the discussion forum so that doesn't happen anymore.

Really dodged a bullet there.

[Azisien]

Yeah now the arguments only happen in every single subforum!

[Funka Genocide]

You're all a bunch of cocksuckers. Globally warmed cocksuckers.

But anyways, so I actually watched most of the video and found it very interesting, however in the end it was pretty much the same thing that happens here, except with bigger words.

Someone cites a source, someone invalidates that source and cites their own, someone says "nuh uh" so on and so forth.

I think the pertinent information is that yes, humans have and are continuing to change the global climate. This is a bad thing, not a good thing.

However, I came away disagreeing with the resolution they were debating on. I don't think climate change is the "defining issue of mankind" or whatever, fuck if anything nuclear weaponry still is, but moreso than that it's rampant poverty in developing nations, and going green cold turkey isn't going to do fuck all for developing nations, who will likely face strict economic sanctions for their inability to meet first world green standards.

We should work on it yes, I feel that developed nations should make efforts to decrease their carbon footprints drastically, but trying to force the rest of the world to measure up to first world benchmarks is probably detrimental.

[Osterbaum]

No valid and/or informed claim proving human induced global warming wrong as a scientific theory has been presented in this thread. Nor has one such argument been made against changing our ways and our dependance on fossil fuels. Not one. It is good to be skeptical, but there is a big difference between that and convinient ignorance.

[Funka Genocide]

No valid and/or informed claim proving human induced global warming wrong as a scientific theory has been presented in this thread. Nor has one such argument been made against changing our ways and our dependance on fossil fuels. Not one. It is good to be skeptical, but there is a big difference between that and convinient ignorance.

uh well, considering the very true fact that we've added about 30% more carbon to the atmosphere than before the industrial revolution... I don't think anyone CAN make a valid or informed claim that human induced global warming is wrong.

Because its not wrong.

Nor can anyone really say that we should go on like this forever since, well there's only so much fossil fuel on the planet so we will eventually stop whether we want to or not.

The real question isn't should we do something or is it happening, it's what should we do and how.

That's what the video debate was about... at the beginning of the thread.

[bluestarultor]

So hey, on the subject, there's a new news article that helps illustrate some of the current, terrifying effects: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100307/sc_mcclatchy/3444187

[Mirai Gen]

In some spots off Washington state and Oregon , the almost complete absence of oxygen has left piles of Dungeness crab carcasses littering the ocean floor, killed off 25-year-old sea stars, crippled colonies of sea anemones and produced mats of potentially noxious bacteria that thrive in such conditions.
They were paid by the government.

Obviously.

[Osterbaum]

Obviosly. Didn't you know that lack of oxygen is actually good for marine life?

uh well, considering the very true fact that we've added about 30% more carbon to the atmosphere than before the industrial revolution... I don't think anyone CAN make a valid or informed claim that human induced global warming is wrong.
Wrong isn't the term I'd use, rather I use the term "bad". Because it is from many perspectives, one major one being the diminishing biodiversity of plant and animal life on earth.

[Thadius]

Let me try this once more.

Normally? I'd be content with sitting by. Really. I'd like for it to be proven one way or the other, that way I won't have to speak out and risk looking like an idiot.

However, since this issue has gone on for too long as is...

No I will not be sated with samples from a tree's rings or ice from Antarctica. I mean, yeah, that's good data and all, showing that when you put X amount of carbon into the air, you get Y amount of temperature increase. I admit that!

But that's only the data for that one spot on Earth.

I mean, yeah, you have to fuck up the atmosphere something fierce to affect fucking Antarctica, I admit that as well. Who said it was us though? What about, oh, I dunno, volcanic eruptions? What if the earth itself put that carbon up there?!

The best and most implausible way to be certain would be to master time itself, release a satellite into orbit around the Earth, and have it gather the data for you of all of Earth's past.

Barring that?

I'll wait it out. Whoever wins? Someone loses.

And yes, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong on my 'chosen' stance. Which I think puts me above...

Oh! Just about the entire rest of the world in this debate!

[Geminex]

I'm guessing the rest of the world is absolute in their stance, because they perceive it as an urgent matter of survival, which it quite possibly is. And your argument that "we can't know" is... interesting.

But see, I really can't think of any way that CO2 could have gotten into the air other than by human influence. There aren't all that huge amounts of free CO2 in depots or reservoirs. I doubt that it came from the earth itself. Definitely not volcanoes, we're doing quite a lot of monitoring there, and we probably would've noticed that. Besides, Unless it's extremely active, no volcano could come even close to the amount of gasses we put into the air.
I'm not definite. But I can say that there's a very high probability that the source of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses appears to be humanity. Also cows, but they're just there to feed the humans.

As for this:
But that's only the data for that one spot on Earth.
I guess that's an argument you could make. Though it does sound rather desperate. Yes, climate is a hugely complex business, and we can't even predict the weather with exactitude, let along analyze the exact impact of certain atmospheric gasses. But the physics behind global warming really aren't that complex. Solar radiation gets bounced back to earth when it tries to leave the atmosphere. Of course there's factors we don't know about, that we can't predict, that might even change the final outcome. But we really need to look at "what is most likely?" here, and not take a stance that amounts to "unless we can be 120% sure, the status quo remains".

[Sifright]

Holy crap thadius do you really have no fucking idea about the scale of human endeavors is that really going to be your argument? Your comment about possibly thinking your stance could wrong putting you on a high horse is hilarious but lets ignore that for now and focus on why your argument of scale is ridiculous.

"WE CANT POSSIBLY BE DOING THIS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE."

Except guess what humans regular effect things on a huge scale because we have something you seem to take for granted which nothing else on this planet has ever had called technology which allows us to do things like blow the top of an entire mountain or smaller things like drive to work at 100 miles per hour. now to give you some actual info on the kind of scale things humans do.

We as a race consume 170 BILLION liters of crude oil a year or to put that another way we consume a volume of crude oil each year of about 170,640,000 cubic metres or to put that into a figure that is more easily visualized size 68,256, Olympic size swimming pools.


"I mean, yeah, you have to fuck up the atmosphere something fierce to affect fucking Antarctica, I admit that as well. Who said it was us though? What about, oh, I dunno, volcanic eruptions? What if the earth itself put that carbon up there?!"

Lolwhat? we outpaced carbon emissions from volcanoes quite a while ago I've seen this argument bandied about a few years ago and it was as limp dicked of an argument then as it is now.

As for complaints about whether we put the co2 there it's ridiculous that you think it matters as it's all about equilibrium and how we are upsetting that by putting out more than can be absorbed but for whats it's worth YES the co2 is there because of us if you need the information read this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-cosub2sub-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

Long story short.

"How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14." Small excerpt from said article.

Edit: so it turns out my numbers for crude were off we use far more than I claimed. in a year we use twenty two billion barrels of crude or 3,449,250,000,000 litres of crude oil or 3,449,250,000 cubic metres or 3.4 cubic kilometres So yea it's clearly not something that could possibly effect the world nooooo >.>

[Mondt]

This thread is primarily both sides who have gone to websites that support their idea for support, getting mixed information that sometimes doesn't even relate that much to AGW.

Woohoo!

And Gem, the argument that I know of isn't that we aren't emitting CO2, it's that we went from a fraction of a percent to a slightly larger fraction of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere and should be fairly negligable.

Just from what I understand. We didn't get a lot of actually good presentations in my IB Group 4 discussion last year. Just lots of Pro and Anti bullshit. *shrug*

[Sifright]

Mondt we give out 4.8% of total co2 emissions a year that is an enormous amount and is what is throwing things out of whack. there is a limit to what can be absorbed by plant life and the ocean and we surpassed it quite some time ago which is why Co2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. I don't know where you have heard the claim that it's a fraction of a percent but it's bullshit.

[Sithdarth]

But that's only the data for that one spot on Earth.

Actually because of how the atmosphere works Antarctica is a dumping ground for basically everything that ever gets in the atmosphere. Remember the Ozone Layer hole? It was over Antarctica for a reason and that reason wasn't billions of people using refrigerators in Antarctica. We also know from studies today that generally speaking the atmosphere is generally well mixed. There are natural variations but nothing really drastic.

Now as for other sources of climate data they are more localized than Antarctic ice in terms of the data they capture. They make up for this by being all over the world. There are probably at least 100s of different sites from all over the world that have been studied. Complaining about the data being restricted to only those points is like complaining you can't predict the weather with only a barometer and a wind gage. Obviously you can predict the weather with only those things and some scientific knowledge. Maybe you can't predict it as certainly or with as much advanced warning as you can with satellites but people did a damn good job of it for centuries. Similarly having a weather satellite in orbit stretching back into history would be great but you really don't need it to get an idea about what the climate was doing.

And Gem, the argument that I know of isn't that we aren't emitting CO2, it's that we went from a fraction of a percent to a slightly larger fraction of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere and should be fairly negligable.

Except at this point its obviously not to anyone that takes a look at the poles. It was actually obvious a long time ago to scientist but that includes looking at some complex data.

[Mirai Gen]

Let me try this once more.

Normally? I'd be content with sitting by. Really. I'd like for it to be proven one way or the other, that way I won't have to speak out and risk looking like an idiot.

However, since this issue has gone on for too long as is...

No I will not be sated with samples from a tree's rings or ice from Antarctica. I mean, yeah, that's good data and all, showing that when you put X amount of carbon into the air, you get Y amount of temperature increase. I admit that!

But that's only the data for that one spot on Earth.

I mean, yeah, you have to fuck up the atmosphere something fierce to affect fucking Antarctica, I admit that as well. Who said it was us though? What about, oh, I dunno, volcanic eruptions? What if the earth itself put that carbon up there?!

The best and most implausible way to be certain would be to master time itself, release a satellite into orbit around the Earth, and have it gather the data for you of all of Earth's past.

Barring that?

I'll wait it out. Whoever wins? Someone loses.

And yes, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong on my 'chosen' stance. Which I think puts me above...

Oh! Just about the entire rest of the world in this debate!
God bless you Thaddius.

"HAHAHAAHHHAHA! Obviously, everyone is freaking out for no reason, and you're all so ridiculous in thinking that humans can actually have an effect on the Earth's climate. I'm just going to sit back and relax so that way if the world's just fine in ten years, I can be smugly arrogant to everyone who wanted to play it safe with the survival of our species!

But I fully well admit I could be wrong!"

[Professor Smarmiarty]

There is a reason I bailed on this debate on like page 2- came back in to check and yep, still as ridiculous as back then.

[Green Spanner]

There is a reason I bailed on this debate on like page 2- came back in to check and yep, still as ridiculous as back then.

There's just something about debate in subjects like global warming...

It's like the breeding call of the crazies.

[Sifright]

might be because there is very little left to debate?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Its the flat earth society of the new millenia. Though maybe that is TimeCube.

[Azisien]

The craziness of the arguments is understandable. There is a lot of money involved. And it requires some education to comprehend the topics well.

Yuck, education.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Dude, Jimmy Carter had a handle on global warming in the fucking 70s. Nobody has an excuse.

[Azisien]

Well, he also thought we'd be completely out of oil by like 1985, a year before I was born.

The point you raise is interesting though! Because between the 70s and now, the only thing that's occurred is the science and technology advancing, in some ways dramatically. This is good because we have a better handle of whats happening and bad because the more complex something is, the easier it is for skeptics to be like "ooooo that's not possible nyah nyah."


I should take this moment to mention that the skeptical perspective is sooo 17th century guys.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well mostly the thing that happened between then and now was Ronald Reagan.

[Marc v4.0]

It really is sad to see any discussion where someone brings up the point of

"While I agree that limiting and cleaning up carbon emmisions is a step in the right direction, we need to do more research into accuratly rating the full impact of human-influenced global climate change before we start developing methods to reverse the effects of those emmisions as well. Our lack of oversight and education on this issue is what helped cause the problem we currently have and to run towards a dozen different climate-cooling methods at once would serve us no better. We need to consider and understand, to the very best of our abilities, the full impact these steps might have before we force them into being because we are in a hurry."

and they get laughed and jeered out for being a troll.

Seriously, what the fuck you guys?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Let's imagine we are having a discussion about sending a rocket ship to Mars and I say "Before we can do this we need to fully understand the implications of quantised gravity for without such knowledge our resources will not be fully optimised" I would be clearly trolling you.
Only replace a passive exploration trip with potential death of vast swathes of our population. I mean if its not trolling it's either ignorance or evilness.

[Osterbaum]

Not to mention we already understand quite a lot.

[Marc v4.0]

Let's imagine we are having a discussion about sending a rocket ship to Mars and I say "Before we can do this we need to fully understand the implications of quantised gravity for without such knowledge our resources will not be fully optimised" I would be clearly trolling you.
Only replace a passive exploration trip with potential death of vast swathes of our population. I mean if its not trolling it's either ignorance or evilness.

Oh, so, to be concerned that if we rush into something without being sure the solution is controllable or correct and urge that we need to take the extra 2-3 years and do a little more homework on our solution methods, that is ignorant and evil? Can't be intelligent, can't be a smart move, careful, thoughtful, a rather good idea. Just Evil or Stupid.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Oh, so, to be concerned that if we rush into something without being sure the solution is controllable or correct and urge that we need to take the extra 2-3 years and do a little more homework on our solution methods, that is ignorant and evil? Can't be intelligent, can't be a smart move, careful, thoughtful, a rather good idea. Just Evil or Stupid.

Pretty much. To gain the full understanding you want would take decades and vast amounts of funding to rush it. By which time it would be too late.
We have methods right now which are incredibly viable and if we delay them even a few years we will be going over the tipping point. The production of CO2 is too vast that we need to cut back instantly-waiting will be too late. One can continue to research once the first measures are in place.
Also who is going to fund it? Nobody funds this research as it is. If you manage to find a magical source of money, it will be far more cost-effective to use it to lower emissions.We know how to do this- it is cheap, easy and fast. Research is slow, expensive and hard.
Besides our understanding is already very good- any research would only lead to a few percent increase in efficiency if that which would be vastly outweighed by the damage done in the intervening years.
So yes, it is evil or stupid.
It is not rational because it ignores the vast amount of evidence that we have that says urgency is essential in favor of "I hate change/the first people to die will be black people and who cares about them-amIrite?". It is also not rational even if you are all like "Money money money" because it is the opposite of cost-effective. When you are 90% efficient you should drop those measures in straight away, instead of spending more money and lots of polluting time,t trying to find that extra 10%.

Edit: Also you are rehasing the line that has been spun for the past 30 years that has got us into the shit we are in now- pretty much precisely because people were too scared shitless to call them trolls, to call them evil shits. To fix the planet at some point we just need to say "Shut up and fuck off" or this line will be used to prevent progress for the next 30 years. And by then the CO2 monster will eat us.

[Marc v4.0]

The production of CO2 is too vast that we need to cut back instantly-waiting will be too late.


Lowering (and eliminating, ultimatly) our emmisions is seriosuly the best idea ever and needs to be done post haste.


Launching big disks into the sky or seeding extra clouds or doing any of the dozens of hair-brained schemes to activly lower the temp of the planet back down, to counteract the warming, is fucking stupid to do without extensive research into the long-term effects.

It isn't difficult to understand at all what I was saying, but you seem to want to paint my opinion as being "We shouldn't do anything at all, ever, until we spend another 8 decades researching".

It's the same way Ibian was treated, and he clearly said

If you just wanna stop further warming then we have no issue.

but like hell I'm going to let it get twisted around on me.

We are all, hopefully, adults here. Can we have an actual debate where we don't blindly disregard reasonable concerns and opinions while either stuffing our ears and going "lalala" or completely misrepresenting and accusing people of shit they never said?


EDIT: Guess not

Edit: Also you are rehasing the line that has been spun for the past 30 years that has got us into the shit we are in now- pretty much precisely because people were too scared shitless to call them trolls, to call them evil shits. To fix the planet at some point we just need to say "Shut up and fuck off" or this line will be used to prevent progress for the next 30 years. And by then the CO2 monster will eat us.

Lowering (and eliminating, ultimatly) our emmisions is seriosuly the best idea ever and needs to be done post haste.

[stefan]

see bullshit denial like this is why I support just letting GW deniers live in their fingers-in-ears fantasy while the rest of us get the fuck off this planet and start building self-sustaining orbital habitats.

then in a few hundred years when they realize just how badly they fucked up we can all be chilling in side 3, drinking space absinthe and being all "problem, terra?" as we pointedly extort them for all their moneys worth when they desperately try to throw their fortunes at the environment in a futile attempt to salvage it.

[Marc v4.0]

see bullshit denial like this

I'm out.

[Sithdarth]

Launching big disks into the sky or seeding extra clouds or doing any of the dozens of hair-brained schemes to activly lower the temp of the planet back down, to counteract the warming, is fucking stupid to do without extensive research into the long-term effects.

You do realize none of those are actually serious honest to god proposals. They are kind of like the plans for deflecting an asteroid heading for Earth. You want the options but no one ever expects to have to use them and most everyone doesn't really think they'll work anyway. About the only geoengineering project that has a chance of seeing the light of day is the artificial trees that absorb CO2 and they refuse to implement them until they find a safe way to store the captured CO2. It is also the project that we know won't have any adverse effects we can't counter by releasing some stored CO2 or burning some coal.

[stefan]

I'm out.

'kay.

[Marc v4.0]

You do realize none of those are actually serious honest to god proposals. They are kind of like the plans for deflecting an asteroid heading for Earth. You want the options but no one ever expects to have to use them and most everyone doesn't really think they'll work anyway. About the only geoengineering project that has a chance of seeing the light of day is the artificial trees that absorb CO2 and they refuse to implement them until they find a safe way to store the captured CO2. It is also the project that we know won't have any adverse effects we can't counter by releasing some stored CO2 or burning some coal.

I realize that. The entire point of my first post (Here (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=1023536&postcount=125)) was to show my disgust that the basic point I present within was just shoved aside and labeled as trolling only because the person who presented it did a poor job, but you could easily figure out what he was talking about if you gave a few moments to actually consider it insteadof disregarding or misrepresenting it.

It is my belief, too, that we should be eliminating carbon emissions and completely ignoring the goofy schemes/carefully researching the ones that seem legit and of minimal risk. But I guess I am just an evil, ignorant denier that loves his carbon emissions and enables all the evil coporations, so whatever.

Sith, you are reasonable enough, and tend to actually listen to what people are saying, so I wanted to give some clarification to at least one person that isn't going to just ignore everything that I say because it isn't exactly like what they agree with.

[Azisien]

I have to admit, the "plans to fix climate change" that get all the coverage on all the media sites I go to, or any of the papers I read, tend to be the wacky ones.


Perhaps this thread would be improved by the posting of these ridiculously easy, overnight responses to cutting CO2 emissions by 99%.

[Mondt]

So much aggression is going on here.

Why can't we respect someone's opinion even if we believe its wrong and politely tell them why citing sources and actually convincing them? (Yeah, I know I said something earlier sans good source. Bad move on my part)

It would be like... an actual debate! For the purpose of convincing people to help the movement and not just taking out your internet aggression and proving you're right?

[Mirai Gen]

So much aggression is going on here.

Why can't we respect someone's opinion even if we believe its wrong and politely tell them why citing sources and actually convincing them? (Yeah, I know I said something earlier sans good source. Bad move on my part)

It would be like... an actual debate! For the purpose of convincing people to help the movement and not just taking out your internet aggression and proving you're right?

I have (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=1022399&postcount=45) done this. (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=1022419&postcount=52)

I am tired of doing it.

Nobody on that side of the fence is listening.

We already know what is happening. We are fucking the earth and those in power are too busy fanning themselves with money to possibly give a shit.

Every single time evidence is brought against them, they're allegedly paid off to say the wrong thing by THE GOVERNMENT, or someone brings up the 'natural earth cycle' thing again despite that the article disproves it, or just gloss it over to restate the same condescending fact-ignoring horseshit over and over again.

I am sick to death of those who stubbornly cling to ignorance and ignore facts with logical fallacies for no discernible reason, and therefore feed more flippant disregard into society until the human race is going to be in real, honest jeopardy.

As Fifth said, if you honestly want to debate about global warming I am not stopping you, but you have to to do a lot better than THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYIN EVERYONE TO LIE! Or, in this case, WE MIGHT OVERSHOOT AND CAUSE AN ICE AGE!

EDIT:
It is my belief, too, that we should be eliminating carbon emissions and completely ignoring the goofy schemes/carefully researching the ones that seem legit and of minimal risk.
...what goofy schemes? Carefully research what ideas? There aren't any.

Whatshisname's entire point was that we shouldn't do anything to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere because we might overshoot, even though we're already producing enough to thermonuke ourselves out of existence.

Even if we did, what 'goofy ideas' were we going through with? We're testing ideas and seeing if any of them work because we need them. It's an urgent problem that requires urgent attention! If there was one that might pose a real risk but we were doing it anyway then yes we shouldn't do it, but that isn't even happening!

Fuck, science is based on careful research and attention. Nobody's going to run into a science lab and go "HAY LET'S SHOOT A MISSILE AT THE CO2!"

[Aerozord]

I just wanted to chime in about a mistake alot of people seem to be making.

By global warming they mean planetary average is increasing. Many places experience drastically reduced tempuratures as polar is melts it releases cold water into the oceans which messes with the currents causing the tempurature to lessen. Thus global warming is why these harsh winters keep hitting the north.

It reduces temperate regions, enlarges deserts, as well as tundra.

I also find this arguement rather pointless. Who cares if we are the cause of global warming, we should be trying to reduce the amount of polution we cause anyways. In any case I'm sorry but we are screwed for the next few centuries. These are long term effects already in motion. We can lessen how bad it will be and shave a few decades off, but minus something drastic we cant stop it anymore.

Hope they come up with a way to extend our food supply. I heard worse case scenario is we will be down to only enough food to support 2 billion. Basically anyone outside the four bread/rice baskets is screwed

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Perhaps this thread would be improved by the posting of these ridiculously easy, overnight responses to cutting CO2 emissions by 99%.

Just to clarify, I don't think anybody was arguing for the wacky schemes. The absolute first thing you need to do is regulate emissions and crack down on people. There is no one single "idea" to reduce emissions because it depends heavily on the industry. We had a speaker here a couple of weeks ago who has been challenging people to come up with an industry that he can't point to simple ways to reduce emissions by at least 70-75% ( I can't remember the exact figure- it was in this ballpark) and so far nobody has done it. It is simple, we just need to force the companies to do it.
These need to be done straight away.
But then we have people arguing "Oh noes, we can't lower CO2. Who knows what it'll do- I'm so wacky!"

[Azisien]

But then we have people arguing "Oh noes, we can't lower CO2. Who knows what it'll do- I'm so wacky!"

Haha, those wacky people will do that.

Here's the thing, the public probably won't get their governments to do it in short order, particularly in many countries.

So the only other option is politicians looking beyond the next election results and going "Fuck it" which also probably won't happen on a mass scale. And even if multiple governments did do this, everybody'd just scream dictator/fascism/whatever.

I don't know the approach required but I imagine a rigourous education campaign is required. Sadly, the conspiracy stuff has muddled the waters.

[Osterbaum]

So much aggression is going on here.
Well it is a heated issue.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

This is why we need to stop treating the objections as valid. They are not and treating them as such just prevents progress.

[Bob The Mercenary]

This is why we need to stop treating the objections as valid. They are not and treating them as such just prevents progress.

I don't know if you meant it or not, but that is the most totalitarian thing I've ever read. xD

[Professor Smarmiarty]

OK but I'm going to expect you next time you are ill, for éxample, to not go to a doctor but instead take an opinion poll on your treatment. Or maybe ring up some rich people and ask what will cause the least problems for them in your treatment.
It's one of the great tragedies of free speech that it is interpreted through the modern media as giving equal time to conflicting opinion - ie people who are legitimate experts on one hand and random fuckers off the street on the other

[Mondt]

Well it is a heated issue.I just wanna see some people be cool about it though. =/

[Green Spanner]

I just wanna see some people be cool about it though. =/

The problem with topics like this, though, is that people will rarely warm to the opposition.

[Osterbaum]

Not to mention that a heated issue will cause extremities on both sides of the argument.

[Geminex]

The problem with topics like this, though, is that people will rarely warm to the opposition.

That's because it creates an atmosphere of uncertainty.

[CABAL49]

That's because it creates an atmosphere of uncertainty.

I got it.

[Mirai Gen]

We'd better be careful or else we might get...

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/2/2b/Mr_Freeze.jpg

AN ICE AGE!

[Ryanderman]

That's because it creates an atmosphere of uncertainty.
I think more often, it's because the opposition puts up a cold front.

[Amake]

At least it's healthy to AIR your grievances.

[synkr0nized]

"And on that bombshell, ..."