Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Karlis

Global-Warming Skeptics Compared to

26 posts in this topic

New York Times environmental reporter Justin Gillis confessed his series on climate "was more or less a direct response to Climategate, which led to a lot of questions about the science." He saw no "scientific misconduct" in the trove of emails: "Points of contention exist within the science, as they should, but not about the basics of whether we have a problem. arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been so warm here this winter I never wore a coat, just a light sweater. Our trees started budding by March and it was so warm I started wearing shorts. March is generally pretty cool here, I've seen it snow in March but not in a long time. There would be times it would hit 70 in the past but only a day or two, not every day and even 80. Which I know at the same time some places in the US have been getting snow like in the Rocky mountains.

A lot of people don't want to believe global warming is real and some people still don't believe in evolution. It will always be that way but global warming is one of those things that could make living on earth a lot harder. I'm hoping we find a solution before it is too late because, as with many things, there comes a point where it will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather is different from climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather is different from climate change.

A practical distinction used in dendrochronology is that trees outlast weather and climate outlasts trees. In practice, this means that to study climate you cannot use any detrending process that compares a tree's growth to an average of itself. If you do this, then assemble the resulting series into a chronology, you get "climate changes" that aren't there - because you are trying to compare different averages from different trees - the apples-to-oranges thing.

But weather is a short-term phenomenon - you can detrend using averages without distorting short-term weather patterns.

I study ice storms: I can use any detrending method that's convenient. If I start studying temperature change, I'll have to detrend my entire 700-core collection all over again.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nobody so far that has been able to demonstrate and prove that either we are not the main cause of the current warming or simply that global warming is a myth.

Knowing about the past climate changes helps in understanding that the past causes are either not in play (i.e. orbital change, intense volcanic activity), a lot less important (i.e. the sun) or in a diffrent way (i.e. greenhouse gases/T° relation vs time). There is a quite evident diffrence with the past here.

Knowing about radiative balance (solar irradiance and radiative forcing) helps to understand how the sun is not the main cause and how our acitvity raised the forcing (anthropogenic greenhouses gas sources and perturbated sinks).

Knowing about air/water currents dynamics helps to understand why not every place in the world is getting hotter and why some places undergo unusual cold/hot episodes etc. Some places are a lot more affected that others (like Siberia and North Pole).

Knowing about the effects on the biosphere and future scenarios helps to understand how it is threatening the life of a lot of species, including ours.

Knowing about all of the above helps in understanding how important the question is now and how urgent it is for us to make some critical choises and undergo radical changes.

The costs/losses of global warming will overpower the costs/losses needed to reduce it's progression. And in every way possible. Time is running out. There is a point that if reached, will provoke some irreversible phenomenons that will be devastating (i.e. sudden methane hydrate release). We do not precisely know what that point is and when we'll reach it but everything seems to point out that it is most probably goind to be reached before 2100.

Life is priceless, don't forget that.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nobody so far that has been able to demonstrate and prove that either we are not the main cause of the current warming or simply that global warming is a myth.

The proof is on the other side. I have posted the proof of warming on UM previously. I used Hansen's global temperature anomalies, but there are other data sets (at least six) that you could use. The problem for the deniers is that there are no data sets that don't show warming. They have no evidence to argue with.

I've got to get back to work, now.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Listening to the reply's from AGW believers is very similar to the scientologist religion.

Extreme and sometimes quite personal in nature, sends a shiver down my spine.

CONCENTRATE ON REAL ISSUES LIKE REAL GLOBAL POLLUTION, DE-FORESTATION, STARVATION AND OVER POPULATION!!!

Surely if we sort these problems out, if AGW was real, it would sort it out. No money in that though <_<

Edited by PeacefulAnarchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the reply's from AGW believers is very similar to the scientologist religion.

Extreme and sometimes quite personal in nature, sends a shiver down my spine.

CONCENTRATE ON REAL ISSUES LIKE REAL GLOBAL POLLUTION, DE-FORESTATION, STARVATION AND OVER POPULATION!!!

Surely if we sort these problems out, if AGW was real, it would sort it out. No money in that though <_<

Global warming is a consequence of POLLUTION! Carbon dioxide, methane, soot, CFCs - in the atmosphere at greater than natural levels, they ALL have detrimental effects on living things. And that is the definition of pollution.

De-forestation: one of the consequences of de-forestation is a reduction in the soil's ability to hold carbon. Remove the tree cover and you increase CO2 in the atmosphere - and warming. Here in the US we have reforested most everything that can be reforested. There are still some odd areas that could be restored - like fields too small to farm efficiently, or too badly eroded. What we need to do is refrain from clearing new land. If you want to know what is going on with US forests, google the USFS' Forest Inventory and Analysis website.

I used to make my living planting trees - I was a contractor for State and Private Forestry. So there is money in it. Most of my work was for private landowners.

In other parts of the world, deforestation is a consequence of over-population. People clear land to grow food to feed themselves. If we want to protect the forests, we have to figure out how to feed the people.

I don't think forests have as much potential as carbon sinks as the popular press does.

Starvation: the major cause of starvation is war. It interferes with both production and distribution of food.

All these issues are part of the same problem. I think it's a soluble problem.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I hear and see a natural disaster like tornadoes or devastating hurricanes hitting and destroying the towns of those skeptics all I can do is smile. Like last week when all those tornadoes hit a town in Rick Perry's Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I hear and see a natural disaster like tornadoes or devastating hurricanes hitting and destroying the towns of those skeptics all I can do is smile. Like last week when all those tornadoes hit a town in Rick Perry's Texas.

Yeah!! I guess that'll show 'em. I get what you mean but it still seems petty to enjoy someone being harmed for any reason. For those who take Global warming as absolute, proven truth (I'm not sure) I say we're in trouble because people do not change quickly and in some cases will refuse to change at all until forced by catastrophe. Folks get angry because the US didn't commit economic suicide by signing onto Kyoto yet China and India - far worse polluters - refused to sign as well. And when I see people talking about carbon tax credits I just smile and think of P.T. Barnum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah!! I guess that'll show 'em. I get what you mean but it still seems petty to enjoy someone being harmed for any reason. For those who take Global warming as absolute, proven truth (I'm not sure) I say we're in trouble because people do not change quickly and in some cases will refuse to change at all until forced by catastrophe. Folks get angry because the US didn't commit economic suicide by signing onto Kyoto yet China and India - far worse polluters - refused to sign as well. And when I see people talking about carbon tax credits I just smile and think of P.T. Barnum.

The Bush administration actually decided not to sign on to Kyoto two weeks before it asked its panel of "experts" if it should. When that panel didn't back them up, they made sure not to ask them again - politics. The Bush people said they'd put together a carbon-reduction plan that would work better; then did nothing.

I have my doubts about whether Kyoto could have accomplished much anyway. Japan tried mightily to make its goals even without the US, and still fell 15% short.

And carbon taxes won't work either - because politicians wright too many exceptions into the laws. Cap-and-trade won't work because all those brokers, inspectors and dealers have to be paid and that will just inflate the costs.

Here's a better idea: a carbon depletion fee, charged at the point of origin or where the product enters the country, based on its life-time carbon footprint. All such fees go into a central fund which is then sent EQUALLY to every citizen (Children get a half-share.). The carbon depletion fee increases gradually over time to give people, businesses, etc. time to adjust their spending.

The "tax" approach gives too many opportunities for mis-use of the money. A tax is a disincentive; people have to see they are benefitting and a monthly check or credit to a debit card is a pretty definite benefit.

This way we can use the free market to help solve the problem instead of being the problem.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why I won't buy into AGW is simple, I do not trust man when it comes to the amounts of money involved in the whole AGW theory. There has been too much misinformation and incorrect statements regarding the whole situation.

I agree that the weather is erratic, but it always has been. How can we presume to make such massive life changing decisions based on a theory we have developed over the last twenty or so years, we are just not that good.

My family and I live a very green life. We have solar panels, compost containers, water butts, soak-away, re-cycling bins and I grow my own vegetables and fruit and have chickens. I teach my 3 children to respect and love nature, but how man has jumped onto AGW and turned it into a trillion $/£ business scares me, something does not add up!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The reason why I won't buy into AGW is simple, I do not trust man when it comes to the amounts of money involved in the whole AGW theory. There has been too much misinformation and incorrect statements regarding the whole situation.

I agree that the weather is erratic, but it always has been. How can we presume to make such massive life changing decisions based on a theory we have developed over the last twenty or so years, we are just not that good.

My family and I live a very green life. We have solar panels, compost containers, water butts, soak-away, re-cycling bins and I grow my own vegetables and fruit and have chickens. I teach my 3 children to respect and love nature, but how man has jumped onto AGW and turned it into a trillion $/£ business scares me, something does not add up!

AGW is a proven fact. Period. Whether you like it or not or think it's just another "conspiracy" dosen't change the facts. Over 2500 scientists have worked on the IPCC report and over 95% of the concerned scientists in climatology agree on the fact that we are warming and that we are the main cause.

If your primary source of doubt is concerning money, you should read the report that was published by the World Bank about development and climate changes. They are well aware of the situation. They give you the current costs/losses due to AGW and costs/losses that would occur if we decide to do something about it.

Their conclusion is quite simple. We need to undergo massive changes because otherwise, we will go through a global ecomonical crisis. They have estimated the "monetary point of non-return" to be as soon as we go over 2°C of warming. After that, we will be in big monetary do-do.

The fact is that even if we stopped polluting tomorrow, chances are will will get over 2°C anyways. If we get over 5°C though (could happen before 2100 if nothing is done) chances are we won't survive that.

I'll bring the book with me tomorrow and try to give you some numbers.

Peace.

Edited by JayMark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why I won't buy into AGW is simple, I do not trust man when it comes to the amounts of money involved in the whole AGW theory. There has been too much misinformation and incorrect statements regarding the whole situation.

I agree that the weather is erratic, but it always has been. How can we presume to make such massive life changing decisions based on a theory we have developed over the last twenty or so years, we are just not that good.

My family and I live a very green life. We have solar panels, compost containers, water butts, soak-away, re-cycling bins and I grow my own vegetables and fruit and have chickens. I teach my 3 children to respect and love nature, but how man has jumped onto AGW and turned it into a trillion $/£ business scares me, something does not add up!

The AGW theory is not really the problem. The problem is people like Al Gore and the CO2 trade scheme!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AGW theory is not really the problem. The problem is people like Al Gore and the CO2 trade scheme!

I agree. I think that the whole carbon tax/trade issue is a major source of doubt among people. They think that AGW could simply be a false claim to impose a tax and make money. That's why you need to get into the scientific work to understand the AGW facts.

A carbon tax is something but sincerly, we wouldn't have to think about doing it if concerned people decided to attack the AGW problem in an intelligent way and especially if the most concerned people did what they need to do. A carbon tax is mostly seen as another way to "force" people in adopting behaviors.

I think there is plenty more that could be done without us, normal people, having to pay for it right off the bat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"New York Times environmental reporter Justin Gillis confessed his series on climate "was more or less a direct response to Climategate, which led to a lot of questions about the science."

The sad thing is that Gillis was actually proud of his deceptions.

This is how ideology destroys basic morality. All manner of evil is excusable as long as the long-term goal of global communism is served.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So people lets ask ourselves this question. What happens when the earth comes out of an ice age?

Also if earth goes through a warming phase we would experience once again a global cooling. Two seperate meteorologist feild friends of mine discussed this with me on two seperate occasions. I'm not going to say either was speaking absolute fact but I will say I did not lead into these conversations with any assumption posed and was offered this insightby both immediately in asking what they thought of the global warming issue.

Now I'm not saying things haven't warmed. In fact in Minnesota/Wisconsin since the storm of 92 or so the winters have progressively gotten a bit warmer and have stabilized a bit the last few years with shorter "winters". I think its more a natural cycle than anything else.

The cynic in me sees an enormous amount of personal monetary gain from this subject.

I think we SHOULD live greener lives without all the toxins and unnecessary chemicals. I think we should be interested in a small carbon foot print. I think we should reduce our dependence on "fossil" fuels. If we can use more solar or hydrogen great! Wind I'm not to fond of in its current state of Desertification directly behind the turbines. But non of this is because I believe that we must act because of global warming but because its simply a better way to live.

Those are my thoughts anyways for what they're worth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So people lets ask ourselves this question. What happens when the earth comes out of an ice age?

Sea levels stabilized about 7000 years ago, indicating that for the most-part, ice had quit melting and the Great Ice Age was over. Ice and sea have fluctuated slightly since then in 1500-year cycles. The last such peak was from about 250 to 800 AD when sea levels were 5.6 feet above modern. Check out the paleo sea levels of the Heroopolitic Red Sea, an ephemeral body of water twenty miles wide and 60 miles long that strecthed from Ismailia, Egypt (just east of the biblical Shur) to 12 miles north of Suez. Hint: it was dry when "Moses" passed that way.

Also if earth goes through a warming phase we would experience once again a global cooling.

If that warming were natural, that would be true. But man-caused warming is not natural. As long as humans are in charge of the climate, there will never again be an ice age. We know how to warm the planet: the output of one CFC plant would be enough to head off any ice age. It's cooling it that we don't know how to do.

Now I'm not saying things haven't warmed. In fact in Minnesota/Wisconsin since the storm of 92 or so the winters have progressively gotten a bit warmer and have stabilized a bit the last few years with shorter "winters". I think its more a natural cycle than anything else.

Funny you should mention 1992. I have been studying winter storms on the Ouachita National Forest using tree rings. That was a bad winter on the Ouachita. It was also anomalous: it was not part of the normal 40-year hot-cold cycle. What caused it? I don't know. Perhaps in a later study...

The cynic in me sees an enormous amount of personal monetary gain from this subject.

If you think the amount to be made from global warming is substantial, check out the amount to be made by polluters as a result of heading off regulation.

I think we SHOULD live greener lives without all the toxins and unnecessary chemicals. I think we should be interested in a small carbon foot print. I think we should reduce our dependence on "fossil" fuels. If we can use more solar or hydrogen great! Wind I'm not to fond of in its current state of Desertification directly behind the turbines. But non of this is because I believe that we must act because of global warming but because its simply a better way to live.

Those are my thoughts anyways for what they're worth.

And that is what the global warming issue is: how to feed, clothe and house the world's people without destroying the ecosystems that make it all possible.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that regardless of whether climate change is real or not... or the cause, the solutions that are pushed are money making solutions for those that push them, and they aren't solutions; they are band-aids.

There is money to be had by corporations and the government if someone buys a reusable grocery bag, a car that uses less or no gas, switches to energy star appliances, shoes made from vegan leather, or uses only recycled paper.

There is no money or a loss of money in telling people to use no grocery bag at all, grow their own food, stop driving, stop using appliances except when necessary, wear out the shoes they already have even if they are made of man-made materials or from leather that isn't cruelty free, to have one or two days a week where they turn off all non-essential power in their home and skip using computers, cell phones, lights, televisions, gaming systems, stereos, etc, to consume less food and less products to reduce the strain on our own wallets and on the natural resources, and boycott every single food that comes with more than 1/5 oz of packaging. That includes fast food and a lot of restaurant food - particularly chains... as the entire restaurant is the packaging in those cases.

Ironically, one set of answers costs the general public more money, the other costs us less. Potentially a lot less!

I'm tired of the idea that "caring about the environment" means "buying things you didn't really need in the first place just because they're called eco friendly".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that regardless of whether climate change is real or not... or the cause, the solutions that are pushed are money making solutions for those that push them, and they aren't solutions; they are band-aids.

The only real solution is to go renewable: solar and/or wind. Until then, fast-breeder nuclear will buy us a lot of time. Natural gas is less-polluting than other sources of energy, but still polluting. We can use it to cover the gap while we bring other methods on line.

There is money to be had by corporations and the government if someone buys a reusable grocery bag, a car that uses less or no gas, switches to energy star appliances, shoes made from vegan leather, or uses only recycled paper.

An electric car with a range of 300-to-500 miles at a price comparable to other cars would save me a bundle. I don't mind paying for a new car if it saves me money.

That's the key: look at the product over the long haul, then go with the one that saves you the most.

There is no money or a loss of money in telling people to use no grocery bag at all, grow their own food, stop driving, stop using appliances except when necessary, wear out the shoes they already have even if they are made of man-made materials or from leather that isn't cruelty free, to have one or two days a week where they turn off all non-essential power in their home and skip using computers, cell phones, lights, televisions, gaming systems, stereos, etc, to consume less food and less products to reduce the strain on our own wallets and on the natural resources, and boycott every single food that comes with more than 1/5 oz of packaging. That includes fast food and a lot of restaurant food - particularly chains... as the entire restaurant is the packaging in those cases.

Nobody is saying you need to go right out and buy something. But next time you need to replace something, go green. It is too late to do anything about the things you have now - the most evironmentally friendly approach is usually to use them up or wear them out before you replace them.

Much of what is being touted is just a greenwash - things advertizers with no knowledge of ecology think they can sell, hoping that the consumer's lack of knowledge will let them get away with it. "Let the buyer beware."

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real solution is to go renewable: solar and/or wind. Until then, fast-breeder nuclear will buy us a lot of time. Natural gas is less-polluting than other sources of energy, but still polluting. We can use it to cover the gap while we bring other methods on line.

Yup and in the interim, before someone can actually get the solar or alternative energy going, having mini "blackout days" would help.

An electric car with a range of 300-to-500 miles at a price comparable to other cars would save me a bundle. I don't mind paying for a new car if it saves me money.

I'm saying that if someone has a car that's only a few years old, buying a new car because it's green still has a negative carbon impact. When possible, driving less and grouping errands on a single day can save about the same, especially if you consider that electric cars still use fuel, it's just converted to electricity before it's in the car.

Now I'd love to see a solar powered electric car... hopefully in ten years or so when I may be in need of a car one will exist :D

Then again, I don't worry about too much now because all the cars I've ever owned have gotten very good gas mileage.... except for the 2nd Chevy Cavalier, it was kind of a guzzler for a 4C.

Nobody is saying you need to go right out and buy something.

I have to disagree, most commercials and some societal standards at least imply such :)

But next time you need to replace something, go green. It is too late to do anything about the things you have now - the most evironmentally friendly approach is usually to use them up or wear them out before you replace them.

Much of what is being touted is just a greenwash - things advertizers with no knowledge of ecology think they can sell, hoping that the consumer's lack of knowledge will let them get away with it. "Let the buyer beware."

Doug

Agreed!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree, most commercials and some societal standards at least imply such :)

Commercials are always after you to buy something. That's what commercials do. There's a lot of "greenwash" in advertising - telling customers that something is environmentally friendly when it's not. Let the buyer beware.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe global warming is not a bad thing ,a little flooding here and there, but if the Antarctica is melting slowly which it is, there would be a whole new continent for humans to live on.smile.gif

You might want to check out the possibility of environmental collapse should climates continue to shift toward warmth. The forests of the American southwest are already in decline and this is only expected to get worse.

Also check out the "methane gun." If we exterminate ourselves, this seems like the most-likely mechanism. There isn't enough CO2 in the air to do it just now, but in a few more decades of business-as-usual and there will be.

Doug

P.S.: the height of land between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea is only 62 feet. A current already flows northward through the Suez Canal. If rising sea level allows a greater flow, we will see a warm current flowing out of the Med into the North Atlantic - with potentially serious weather and climate consequences. And we're not even talking about that one, yet.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never know what to think of global warming, we hear different reports all the time. One set of people saying it's caused by polution etc and we are destroying the planet, another set syaing it's the Earths natural cycle and it's done it before.

Maybe global warming is not a bad thing ,a little flooding here and there, but if the Antarctica is melting slowly which it is, there would be a whole new continent for humans to live on.smile.gif

HowStuffWorks "If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?"

There was a report posted on here before that said one side was melting, but it was buidling up on the other side. Which is just a natural course caused by the Earths tilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.