Global Warming/Climate Change

[Monkeypox]

There is zero question that the ocean plays the largest role in the climate of the Earth.

Yes, but they can't measure the interaction specifically of deep ocean environment to atmosphere. It's one of several HUGE gaps in our understanding of climatology. Because we can't yet quantify these interactions (far too complex and misunderstood), it's assigned neutral value in climate models. Fact of the matter is that we know very little about the deep ocean scientifically when it comes to chemical interactions within and between its environments. We know BASICALLY that it has a carbon uptake of falling food material for bacteria and larger organisms, and that's essentially it. We know that the deep ocean stores heat and circulates based on density, but again, can't entirely quantify its heat storage capacity or the factors for release. For all we know, things could be far worse, in actuality.

[Legend500]

First a preface, then some responses.

Climate science, by its nature, will always be uncertain. That's why there's so much fluidity in the specific numbers in this debate, and why your local meteorologist has such a hellish time putting together an accurate forecast for more than 12 hours out. In this, climatology and meteorology share a great deal with the "softer" sciences such as psychology, politics and sociology. All are statistics-based, and thus cannot rely on the solid totems which the simpler, less creative sciences such as chemistry, physics or biology can rely.

The extent to which humans are causing the problem is rightfully up for debate, but anyone who believes that we can produce tons of CO2 every second, spread it around the world, and it will have no impact simply defies all logic on the matter. What goes in (or up) must come out.

Now, as far as political motivations go, they should be divorced from this matter, on both sides. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, so we must look past it to the facts at hand.

Finally, a clarification is in order. When these problems first came to light, it was termed "global warming" simply because that was the first apparent effect. Scientists now know that this was incredibly short-sighted, and that "climate change" is a better description of the term. Some places will get hotter, some colder. Some will get less rain, some will get more. But what will be evident is that the extremes will become "more extreme." That's where the discussion lies, not in whether or not it's "hot enough for ya" this year.

...but here you are in this thread being rather rational, and in the thread next door you support a President and a party who wouldn't allow us to build a nuclear power plant if our very existence depends on it. ...however, where I'm going to guess we differ is how much involvement the government should have on the subject anyways. Funding for scientific research and decisions about where we get our energy should be coming from the free market - not government.

And yet here you are, berating someone for opposing the absolute fact that nuclear energy must be a part of our solution to the current climate change" problem (which it is, get over it hippies), rightly praising the need for the free market to be involved in the solution, and then stating that the government should have a limited role in bringing other types of energy, such as nuclear to the core.

Big flaw in your argument is that you've clearly never heard of the billion-dollar bailout called the Price-Anderson Nuclear Indemnity Act (where big government expressly takes over the risk of nuclear sites in order to allow them to be built) or the fact that nuclear energy, due tot he expense of building plants, is not competitive with other types of energy without massive federal bond guarantees through entities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Should nuclear play a huge role in lowering emissions? Absolutely, and even Kyoto acknowledged this. Can nuclear do that without government support? No. Full stop. Who has done the most to support the development of nuclear power of late? Barack Obama.

Scepticism (and by 'scepticism' I mean skepticism) is healthy. It should, however, be informed by some knowledge of the subject.

We KNOW we're going through the peak of the 12 year solar cycle. ...and it's interesting that they don't include the fact that the 4 months BEFORE June 2011 were some of the COLDEST on record.

Absolutely true - except for the fact that this "peak" should be cooling the earth more, not warming it. As far as the period between March 2011- May 2011? "For March–May 2011, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above average—also the 10^th warmest March–May on record."

Fact of the matter is we are incapable of accurately measuring our impact, and it's unlikely we'll overcome our limitations in the fields of climatology, meteorology, and geology enough to make any such claims with scientific accuracy... Furthermore, nearly ALL of the studies on global warming over the last 20 years have been conducted under the premise that global warming IS manmade.... But until I hear sensible solutions and see the real backing put into smart projects, I'll continue to rail against bunk science and fairytale politics.

Scientists would concede as much. Climatology is exceedingly difficult to predict, and a lot of the work fails to satisfy the 95% accuracy requirement found in the social sciences. But what about global warming (which, as noted, is simply one symptom of the disease)? Just taking the absolute numbers, the temperatures over the last 20 years fall in-between a 3 and 5 range. What does that mean? Again, just looking at the numbers, there is only between a 0.27% and a 0.0000684% of the temperature anomalies being caused by random chance. Call me crazy, but if it's between two bets, one with a 99.9999426% chance of paying and the other with a 0.0000684% chance, I know which bet I'd take.

As far as the confirmation bias you point out, I first have to counter that if you believe that almost every climate study in the last 20-odd years has been afflicted by the same bias without it being detected, I suggest you reconsider. Such conspiracies (for that is what they are) are impossible to keep secret, are obvious to even jaded minds, and most importantly, are never present. Humans just aren't capable of that level of consistent deception.

An even better counter is the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Report, commissioned and paid for by the brothers Koch. If you believe that the Kochs told Berkeley to confirm that global warming exists and that it must be stopped, then I have lakefront property on Mars I think you would be interested in.

They can practice it all they want. Until they increase their knowledge, though, and address prime faults in their scientific process and methods, then it's just profit by means of conjecture. People who practice science used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. People who practice science used to believe that vaccinations in the 80s wouldn't stop working in 2000. Quite frankly, you can post all the links you want, but until you post one about consensus in the scientific community regarding lead times of CO2 temperature change or absolute analysis of deep sea interaction with the atmosphere, then this "science" is based on faulty climate models. By the way, I can keep going, there's at least 3 or 4 more areas where climate models fail and rely on conjecture.

I hope you don't go to the doctor, then. I'd find it funny if a patient stated that they don't respect my expertise in the field and that they wanted every doctor in the world to concur on their diagnosis of a bloody nose. These people are experts for a reason, and are entitled to deference in their fields of expertise. Neither you nor I are at all qualified to be having such a discussion, but unlike your assertions, mine are backed by the people who actually do this for a living. Show some respect if nothing else.

...and scientists rightly changed their "beliefs" when thy were proven to be wrong. The availability of new date showed previous beliefs to be wrong and continually confirmed a new paradigm. That's what happened from the global cooling debacle of the 70's to now. The old science was disproves, the new is continually confirmed. Unlike religion and politics, science doesn't care if its basic beliefs are challenged, in fact it relishes it. People who don't understand the distinction are simply to obstinate to be worthy of civilized discourse.

Oh, and if 97%-98% isn't a enough of a consensus on the overall truth of the matter (taking your important qualifications into account, the scientists involved have dismissed them and still concur that climate change is happening), then what do you require? Fortunately for your decision, there's only about 3 other options that you could have.

[Monkeypox]

You know what the conclusions of Muller from the Berkeley project have been? More clean natural gas and fracking. Note also that the Berkeley project has removed bias by taking RANDOM samplings, not by including more data.

It's not a conspiracy that the scientific community is only looking at anthropogenic global warming studies. Nobody's trying to hide it. It's where the money and interest lies. Nobody wants to hear that there are problems you can't fix. As far as your article regarding the consensus, it involves the "most actively publishing climate scientists." So I'm not impressed. It simply shows what I'm saying - climate scientists are primarily all looking for one thing... and they're finding it.

I do go to the doctor, but I've done well by not taking what they say as gospel, as they make mistakes often, too. I avoid doctors and medications as much as I do gurus and hocus pocus. They're equally fallibe, unfortunately.

And, to get to the point, if you can't agree on lead times between CO2 and temperature, then you can't show me how our policies to reduce carbon emissions are effective. Not for decades.

And, of course, as I've stated before, the greatest driver of even theoretical anthropogenic global warming is population. So without curbing population growth, you're pissing in the wind. If you believe in anthropogenic global warming, then you should logically believe that human extinction is inevitable.

For me, it's as irrelevant as aliens and Jesus.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Monkeypox

[UNTstormchaser]

That's such a retarded way to look at things. The whole idea behind trying to reduce our carbon footprint is to leave our ancestors a better planet to live on. If there are no children, there is no point. It isn't like the Earth is going to blow up in 5 years, odds are it will still be livable throughout our lifetime. But to suggest that having children while changing your lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly is hypocrisy, is absurd. Continuing our life as a species is not a bad thing for the environment, in fact that is what happens in nature. Life forms reproduce. We are a life form. That is what the point of life is.

I understand that the US lifestyle is ridiculously consumptive. That's the whole point in changing one's lifestyle, to go against that. I don't understand how that can be difficult to comprehend. Change starts with a single person. If the US is going to change, people are going to have to change before it's the popular thing to do. Now, changing your life to be more environmentally friendly may not make as much of an impact as not having children, but in the long run, having the normal amount of children (you know, 1-4, not like 19 like the idiots who have that TV show), and teaching them to be environmentally conscious and to care about the planet they live on leads to a pretty damn positive impact.

Making the world more environmentally friendly should be the single biggest concern humanity has, regardless of the validity of man-made climate change. How, in any way, is cleaning up our planet ever a bad idea? Only bad can come of ignoring our impact, and only good can come from changing it.

[GrayEagle]

We've had greenhouse gasses since the beginning of time. If we didn't have them the planet would be uninhabitable. Without them the temperature would be well below zero.

What I don't understand is why there is supposedly more CO2 today than say 100 years ago when many plants ran on coal or wood and cars on leaded gas. Maybe it's not just pollution.

[GTWT]

We've had greenhouse gasses since the beginning of time. If we didn't have them the planet would be uninhabitable. Without them the temperature would be well below zero.

What I don't understand is why there is supposedly more CO2 today than say 100 years ago when many plants ran on coal or wood and cars on leaded gas. Maybe it's not just pollution.

CO2 is good. Plants use it in photosynthesis. Too much CO2 is bad. It acts as a greenhouse gas and if levels increase the amount of solar energy retained by the earth's atmosphere will increase, leading to global warming.

Despite Monkeypox's bemoaning the error resident in the climate change model (& there's error in every scientific model), the physics of climate change is very straightforward. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we're releasing massive amounts of CO2, temperatures are rising.

[UNT90]

I actually totally agree with your point UNT90. Though the amount we breathe out pales in comparison to the amount that is produced through the burning of fossil fuels, it is still very significant, and since our population is growing rapidly and we're making the plant population dwindle rapidly, it's a bad combination. I think mother nature will be thinning the herd soon enough, as batshit crazy as that may sound. We're overdue for a major cataclysm. Be it the supervolcano in Yellowstone that is 60,000 years overdue and showing signs of increased activity, the meteor in 2033 that is going to miss us at first but has a 1 in 1,000 chance of hitting us on it's backswing around the Earth, some freakish famine caused by mass drought that could already be beginning, we're due. Or, we could blow ourselves up in a World War 3, which isn't that unlikely either. Thin the herd it is!

Well then, if nature is going to take care of us anyway, let's get our fossil fuel party pants on and go crazy!!!!!

[yyz28]

YYZ28, I know you're too intelligent to reject an analysis just because it comes from NOAA. Do you doubt the moon landings because the information is from NASA?

I doubt the NOAA numbers not because NOAA is a government agency, rather that there has been a great deal of press that their methods don't exactly follow any scientific basis, and that they pick and choose the data to bolster the argument they are trying to make.

Let's take your core argument as the gospel for just a moment - Assuming its true, then the folks trying to make the point to the rest of us who depend on them to draw conclusions on data we haven't all been educated to understand, then the data at least should be consistent. When data is manipulated (be it NOAA or the e-mails uncovered showing that the EPA and several Universities and International groups have been manipulating the data to make things seem worse than they really are) credibility is lost. You've got to see why folks are skeptical.

I would like to acknowledge that I dodn't expect to change your mind using science. The science isn't why you deny anthropogenic climate change. Other folks, people who are still open to argument, should know that your doubt of the reality of climate change isn't rational. Rather it's a defense mechanism gone awry.

...and all the good you were doing just goes out the window. Those of us who don't agree with the conclusions you have arrived at are irrational? Sad that it has to come to that...

And yet here you are, berating someone for opposing the absolute fact that nuclear energy must be a part of our solution to the current climate change" problem (which it is, get over it hippies), rightly praising the need for the free market to be involved in the solution, and then stating that the government should have a limited role in bringing other types of energy, such as nuclear to the core.

I'm certainly not berating him. I AM just pointing out that the bulk of the opposition to Nuclear power comes from the Left. ...which is accurate. ...and Yes, I DO want private solutions to this problem, but I am also aware that TODAY, you have to literally get an act of congress and a blessing from the President, via the EPA to build a reactor. These concepts aren't in conflict. If we didn't need government to get permits to build a plant, I wouldn't even list them as part of the equation. ...but that's not how the field is currently striped.

Big flaw in your argument is that you've clearly never heard of the billion-dollar bailout called the Price-Anderson Nuclear Indemnity Act (where big government expressly takes over the risk of nuclear sites in order to allow them to be built) or the fact that nuclear energy, due tot he expense of building plants, is not competitive with other types of energy without massive federal bond guarantees through entities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority.

I have hard of it and i oppose it. I'd rather see it being handled by the private sector, butit isn't a bailout, its an insurance program. It doesn't fund plant construction, it basically provides an insurance fund against catastrophic damage as a result of a melt down or failure. ...and it isn't a bailout, it is funded by private industry and the power companies who use power. It is only administered by the Government. It isn't funded with tax dollars.

I also think you're off base regarding cost effective nature of nuclear power, which includes amortizing the cost of plant and reactor construction. According to Nolan E. Hertel, PhD, Professor of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology, who is a leading figure in the world of Nuclear Power, quote "the cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity in 2007 was 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.4 cents for coal, 6.7 cents for natural gas and 10.2 cents for oil. In other words, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity was nearly one-third less than power produced at a natural gas plant. And given the sharp rise in oil and gas prices so far this year, nuclear power's advantage has widened. Instead of wasting high-priced natural gas for electricity production, it would make a lot more sense to replace the gas with additional nuclear power and clean-coal plants, while using solar, wind and other renewables to meet peak demand. Electricity customers would benefit if natural gas were to be reserved mainly for residential and industrial uses. A straightforward and serious effort by Congress to move nuclear power forward as quickly as possible would win public support. Nuclear power is too important to be allowed to stall. The fate of our nation's economic health depends on it.”

...you know, since we're all about listening to scientists in this thread.

Should nuclear play a huge role in lowering emissions? Absolutely, and even Kyoto acknowledged this. Can nuclear do that without government support? No. Full stop. Who has done the most to support the development of nuclear power of late? Barack Obama.

Wow... talk about mis-leading.

While this administration hasn't blocked any new plants and when asked has said it feels nuclear power is safe, it hasn't been out there pushing Nuclear power as one of the alternative sources of energy. ...AND moreover, when it comes down to it, the huge environmentalist movement, which is a big power player in the Obama machine, opposes expansion of nuclear energy.

A couple of speeches and allowing a pair of rectors built on an already existing power plant which has been in the works for 15 years doesn't exactly make you Pro-Nuclear.

No proposed legislation on the subject, no push on congress to act.

Absolutely true - except for the fact that this "peak" should be cooling the earth more, not warming it. As far as the period between March 2011- May 2011? "For March–May 2011, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above average—also the 10^th warmest March–May on record."

You use a study from 2006 to make a point about a solar peak which is happening now?

http://stevengoddard...ar-10-16-26.gif

...and here's the data on 2010/2011 winter. The chart on this one is interesting too, only that is shows high and low peaks for decades past industrialization.

Please understand my point. I agree we can have some impact on our local environment. ...but this planet has been through FAR hotter times and FAR colder times and has done so with or without us. ...and EVEN if we've put additional CO2 into the atmosphere and that somehow is causing global climate shift, the planet will continue through these natural cycles, that will be FAR MORE extreme than anything we can even pretend we can do to the earth (short of nuclear winter as a result of global nuclear war).

Edited August 13, 2012 by yyz28

[Monkeypox]

That's such a retarded way to look at things. The whole idea behind trying to reduce our carbon footprint is to leave our ancestors a better planet to live on. If there are no children, there is no point. It isn't like the Earth is going to blow up in 5 years, odds are it will still be livable throughout our lifetime. But to suggest that having children while changing your lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly is hypocrisy, is absurd. Continuing our life as a species is not a bad thing for the environment, in fact that is what happens in nature. Life forms reproduce. We are a life form. That is what the point of life is.

I don't see how you can argue FOR gay marriage and against religion in one thread, and then say that the point of living is to reproduce. You realize surely that your inference that people who responsibly choose not to reproduce in an overpopulated world or that people who are incapable of reproduction are not serving any life purpose is incredibly bigoted. But, then again, you used the word "retarded" to describe a sensible and responsible world-view.

Also, we're not going to run out of people just because those who truly care about "the environment" choose not to reproduce. Until world birthrate drops, there's simply nothing to bolster that belief. But there are finite resources here, and POPULATION is the prime driver of pollution. The earth has a "Maximum Capacity" and I would think that, if anything, those who carry the belief in anthropogenic global warming would be the first to acknowledge it.

[GTWT]

From yyz28:

When data is manipulated (be it NOAA or the e-mails uncovered showing that the EPA and several Universities and International groups have been manipulating the data to make things seem worse than they really are) credibility is lost.

'Climategate' has been misrepresented by science deniers. See factcheck:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

the data at least should be consistent

The data are consistent. Consistent enough to convince the vast majority of scientists expert in climate science.

...and EVEN if we've put additional CO2 into the atmosphere and that somehow is causing global climate shift, the planet will continue through these natural cycles, that will be FAR MORE extreme than anything we can even pretend we can do to the earth (short of nuclear winter as a result of global nuclear war).

And your evidence for this is...? Personal incredulity?

Finally, you blame "the left' for the decline of nuclear power. That's BS. The arguments against nuclear power are being made by the same kinds of science-deniers that argue against anthropogenic climate change & evolution. They have their own reasons to oppose nuclear power and those reasons have nothing to do with science.

[forevereagle]

That's such a retarded way to look at things. The whole idea behind trying to reduce our carbon footprint is to leave our ancestors a better planet to live on.

Unintentional comedy.

[yyz28]

Climategate' has been misrepresented by science deniers. See factcheck:

Yes, because Factcheck is always bias free. I don't need anyone's spin or "fact checking" to read the emails. Clearly Phil Jones at best improperly reported data or at worst completely faked it. The most damning email of them all was the one from MacCracken to Jones, with Obama's chief science advisor, John Holdren, copied:

"In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.

Best, Mike MacCracken"

...I guess the point is that we can all put links into this thread that back up our point of view. When you actually READ the e-mails and not just articles and factcheck's summary, you find some pretty bad stuff in there.

data are consistent. Consistent enough to convince the vast majority of scientists expert in climate science.

The data is HARDLY consistant. The scientific conundrum for climate change alarmists, in my opinion, is how “global” temperature measurements are gathered in the first place. Many of the techniques for gathering temperature data are obtained via archaic methods virtually unchanged for decades. The fact temperature data is extrapolated via antiquated methods from disparate data points spread out across the globe, and then corrected for bias, or what is perceived as bias, and then boiled down to a single global mean average–one number, is hugely problematic from a scientific sense. The “extrapolation problem” is further exasperated by the fact temperature readings from satellites typically don’t correlate with the bias-corrected thermometer data given to us from such folks as NASA, NOAA and the IPCC’s CRU (Climate Research Unit).

Policy is now driving science, instead of science driving policy! This is, in effect, political dogma, not science. The scientific “consensus” on global warming is not based in scientific evidence; it is based instead upon a “predetermined outcome” whose goal is the enactment of stifling taxes and regulations that, at their heart, kill economic productivity in the American private sector and American competitiveness in global markets. This was actually the goal of the Kyoto Protocol–stifle emerging markets and thwart American economic productivity. Think of it as a global Ponzi Scheme (ETS – European Trading System) implemented by a Cloward/Piven-like strategy of overwhelming the bureaucracies of competing global markets with crippling “green” regulations, taxes and fees.

According to the “climate change” alarmists, the very building blocks of life on earth (carbon, CO2, water, etc.) are a “threat to our health and welfare.” I couldn’t think of a bigger government revenue generator than the ability for the federal government to tax and regulate the atoms and molecules that make up life itself. This has nothing to do with our “health and welfare,” but it has everything to do with total power and control over the masses.Recently Chris Horner reported that the EPA has once again reasserted they believe “greenhouse gases pose a risk to our health and welfare.”

And your evidence for this is...? Personal incredulity?

This from a pro CO2/Warming website. Do any search on Tempruature history and you'll find evidence that the planet has been considerably hotter at times in history, without our CO2 production.

...interesting, the most rapid warming since 1900 was also before 1940. So, clearly the warming during that time wasn't all about CO2, and there have been far more emissions post 1940 than pre.

My evidence is history and the fact that despite emissions, the current trend is down.

Finally, you blame "the left' for the decline of nuclear power. That's BS. The arguments against nuclear power are being made by the same kinds of science-deniers that argue against anthropogenic climate change & evolution. They have their own reasons to oppose nuclear power and those reasons have nothing to do with science.

Yes, its the evangelical conservative who is holding up nuclear power. ROTFLMAO!

[UNTstormchaser]

I don't see how you can argue FOR gay marriage and against religion in one thread, and then say that the point of living is to reproduce. You realize surely that your inference that people who responsibly choose not to reproduce in an overpopulated world or that people who are incapable of reproduction are not serving any life purpose is incredibly bigoted. But, then again, you used the word "retarded" to describe a sensible and responsible world-view.

Also, we're not going to run out of people just because those who truly care about "the environment" choose not to reproduce. Until world birthrate drops, there's simply nothing to bolster that belief. But there are finite resources here, and POPULATION is the prime driver of pollution. The earth has a "Maximum Capacity" and I would think that, if anything, those who carry the belief in anthropogenic global warming would be the first to acknowledge it.

I never argued against religion. I argued against using religion for legislation, which you know, is illegal under the Constitution.

As for gay marriage, that also has zero to do with this. There have actually been studies done to see if homosexuality is a natural phenomenon designed to curb population growth, or more simply, to help prevent overpopulation. Regardless of that, homosexuality is not a choice, it is a natural thing that occurs in at least 1500 other animal species, and is completely irrelevant to this. The fact that you bring up my views on gay marriage just shows that you have nothing legitimate to refute anything I have said.

I also never insinuated that people who either choose to not reproduce, or physically cannot reproduce due to their sexual orientation, because of a sexual deformity, or because of a medical issue, aren't living or aren't serving any life purpose. You're taking ridiculous leaps of faith on what I think based on simple things I said, once again because you can't refute a damn thing. All I stated was that the primary function of life is to reproduce. That is fact. Read up on basic biology if you disagree. Look around in nature, look at animals, plants, etc., their primary purpose is to reproduce and continue the life of the species. That is why fish lay thousands of eggs, because most eggs do not end up surviving until adulthood. This is why sea turtles lay hundreds of eggs every year, because it is lucky if even one of them survives until adulthood. That is why kangaroos have the most complex reproductive system, where a mother can support 3 young, each in a different stage of life, at all times, because hardly any of them survive. That is also why the human population has skyrocketed so dramatically, because our reproductive habits and abilities were designed for a time when the percentage of babies that reached adulthood was much lower. That, coupled with the fact that people are living longer as well, has caused the population to jump unbelievably quickly. This is obviously due to the advances in technology, sanitation, medical science, living conditions, etc. No, I am not suggesting that this is bad, before you throw that down my throat, too. But I want to show you something.

My point in showing you this, is to make the point that the Earth cannot handle this amount of people, especially given the amount of crap we put into the air and water. CO2 is the main issue in this thread, but there are so many other things as well. 7 billion people create a lot of garbage, and we don't recycle even half of what we could. Plastics are terrible for the environment. Chemicals are released into the atmosphere all over the world, leading to acid rain. We are cutting down 3-6 billion trees per year. There is so much, there is ZERO chance that we don't effect the environment negatively in some way. It's just downright dumb to think that billions of tons of extra CO2 (non breathing related CO2) being released into the atmosphere each year, coupled with extreme deforestation, plus chemical issues, garbage issues, etc., aren't doing harm in some way. Whether or not that harm is global warming related is unknown, though it's likely that it is influencing it at least a little bit. Even if it's not though, there is going to come a point where we have no trees, no fertile land, no naturally occurring animals, etc., if we continue the pace we're on. These things aren't unlimited, and if the population growth continues to be so rapid, and our consumption continues to grow exponentially, we're screwed.

[UNTFan23]

I never argued against religion. I argued against using religion for legislation, which you know, is illegal under the Constitution.

The US Constitution forbids the establishment of an official religion for the United States of America.

It does not forbid laws from being passed with religious undertones, otherwise DOMA would have never passed ... back in 1996.

[Monkeypox]

My point in showing you this, is to make the point that the Earth cannot handle this amount of people, especially given the amount of crap we put into the air and water. CO2 is the main issue in this thread, but there are so many other things as well. 7 billion people create a lot of garbage, and we don't recycle even half of what we could. Plastics are terrible for the environment. Chemicals are released into the atmosphere all over the world, leading to acid rain. We are cutting down 3-6 billion trees per year. There is so much, there is ZERO chance that we don't effect the environment negatively in some way. It's just downright dumb to think that billions of tons of extra CO2 (non breathing related CO2) being released into the atmosphere each year, coupled with extreme deforestation, plus chemical issues, garbage issues, etc., aren't doing harm in some way. Whether or not that harm is global warming related is unknown, though it's likely that it is influencing it at least a little bit. Even if it's not though, there is going to come a point where we have no trees, no fertile land, no naturally occurring animals, etc., if we continue the pace we're on. These things aren't unlimited, and if the population growth continues to be so rapid, and our consumption continues to grow exponentially, we're screwed.

That was an absurd rant. You've used little if any actual science in any of your posts on this thread. You actually appear to know very little about environmental sciences, and probably need a good deal more schooling on it, because mostly what you've posted has been vagaries about CO2, deforestation (which is surprisingly in decline), and "garbage issues." I speak of deep ocean environments and you talk about "the oceans," displaying ignorance on the topic. And you often say things like "ZERO doubt" on subjects where there is and will be considerable doubt.

Here's the problem, and why I pointed out the hypocrisy. Your lack of knowledge on these subjects, and the failing of scientists in these studies, makes it guesswork and conjecture. If you can't show me lead times between CO2 and temperature, if your data collection is biased and/or faulty, and if you can not show positively HOW programs to reduce CO2 will and HAVE actually achieved results, then you're promoting legislature built on BELIEF, not science. That makes it a religion, and it makes you a zealot, no less so than those who want to dis-allow gay marriage.

You just agreed with me in your last sentence, whether you realize it or not. Population growth will continue to be rapid until the 3rd world catches up. And like I said, since having children increases one's carbon footprint exponentially more than changing ALL PRESENT LIFESTYLE CHOICES, we are indeed screwed, if we're the primary cause of global warming. So, to follow you're thinking

1) The POINT of human beings is to make more human beings

2) More human beings increases CO2 emissions

3) CO2 from humans cause global warming

4) Global warming will kill us all

5) The point of human beings is to kill us all.

Me, I think there is no point.

[GTWT]

yyz28 writes:

Yes, because Factcheck is always bias free.

Is there any source you respect? NOAA, FactCheck, AAAS? Anyone who disagrees with your philosophical (for it's not scientific) position is wrong.

...I guess the point is that we can all put links into this thread that back up our point of view. When you actually READ the e-mails and not just articles and factcheck's summary, you find some pretty bad stuff in there.

You find the typical trash in personal emails that can be taken out of context. The incident was investigated by numerous organizations and no suggestion of wrong-doing was found:

First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.^[103] The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.^[104] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.

That's from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy ) but they provide links to primary sources.

The scientific “consensus” on global warming is not based in scientific evidence; it is based instead upon a “predetermined outcome” whose goal is the enactment of stifling taxes and regulations that, at their heart, kill economic productivity in the American private sector and American competitiveness in global markets.

Thanks for the demonstration of your motivation in denying anthropogenic climate change.

Thanks for the graph. Now, can you find one for the relevant period since the mid-1800s? I'll help -

http://www.roperld.com/science/GlobalWarmingGraphs.htm

Yes, its the evangelical conservative who is holding up nuclear power. ROTFLMAO!

The idiot protesting a modern, efficient, safe nuclear power plant is no different from a Christian fundamentalist trying to worm id/creationism into the public school classroom. Both are reality deniers. Both have motivations that have nothing to do with the science.

[forevereagle]

[yyz28]

I don't have time for tit for tat again, but I simply disagree that only from 1800 to present is "relevant". If the history of the planet can show us that extremes in temperatures is a planetary norm, and we've seen extremes well beyond what we're seeing today, then it calls into question the idea that we're causing the current warm-up (or cool down, as the trend is starting to indicate).

...and yes, I respect lots of sources, but never take one as the gospel. I'll listen to what they all have to say and then make my decision based on my evaluation of what each one has to say. All sources, including Factcheck, politicheck, wikipedia, and snopes, have a bias. Fox News or Huffington Post. Bias is everywhere.

I understand what the single investigation showed (in fact, the factcheck article on the subject has to correct itself and admit that only one organization was investigating the scandal) but I also understand what the emails said. That wasn't a part of an email taken out of context, it was the whole thing. I think the evidence against Phil Jones and the conspiracy to manipulate data is clear. Again, I don't need someone to create a summary for me and tell me what to think (Fact Check, Wikipedia, etc) I can read it myself. I've seen articles from all sides, and I think there is clearly motivation for data manipulation, and the combination of this controversy and the flaw in NOAA data collection methods calls the entire conclusion into question.

You may call into question my motivation, but it really misses the point. I'm expressing why I think some may be motivated to manipulate the reality of the situation and create policy around a science that is at bet controversial and even if 100% accurate, we have no way to reverse it today, or in the foreseeable future. ...behavior modification has often been the reason behind hoisting hoaxes and half-truths on the public in the past. I simply argue this may be one of these cases.

I TOTALLY respect your opinion. I simply just don't buy this. I'm not a science denier. ...I just don't agree that we have enough evidence to link our activity to global climate change. That's my opinion based on my evaluation of the facts and information I've studied over the years.

[Stix]

Also, we're not going to run out of people just because those who truly care about "the environment" choose not to reproduce.

No, we won't run out of people, we'll just become an Idiocracy, and then the Garbage Avalanche of 2505 will occur.

...brought to you by Carl's, Jr.!

[Monkeypox]

No, we won't run out of people, we'll just become an Idiocracy, and then the Garbage Avalanche of 2505 will occur.

But Brawndo has what plants crave! It's got electrolytes.

A man said to the universe

"Sir, I exist!"

"However," replied the universe,

"The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation."

[oldguystudent]

I blame the UNT dancers for global warming. They're so hot, the Mean Green Brigade won't even wear their full uniforms! Thank God we've got those giant fans to help keep us cool this year!

[UNTstormchaser]

That was an absurd rant. You've used little if any actual science in any of your posts on this thread. You actually appear to know very little about environmental sciences, and probably need a good deal more schooling on it, because mostly what you've posted has been vagaries about CO2, deforestation (which is surprisingly in decline), and "garbage issues." I speak of deep ocean environments and you talk about "the oceans," displaying ignorance on the topic. And you often say things like "ZERO doubt" on subjects where there is and will be considerable doubt....

...1) The POINT of human beings is to make more human beings

2) More human beings increases CO2 emissions

3) CO2 from humans cause global warming

4) Global warming will kill us all

5) The point of human beings is to kill us all.

Me, I think there is no point.

Twisting words and making accusations seems to be your forte. Congratulations.

I've used nothing but legitimate science. If you disagree with fundamental biology's claim that the PRIMARY (NOT THE ONLY) purpose of life is to reproduce, then go get a doctorate degree in biology, find a university that will fund your research, and prove it wrong. That's my response to point 1.

Point 2: That is true, but is not my argument. I don't even know how you can even assume that I am trying to link point 1 with point 2 here. That doesn't even make sense, given the direction of my arguments.

Point 3: I never said that was the case, either. You really have been doing some skim reading, huh? I've said, multiple times in fact, that CO2 emissions may have little effect on climate change, or it may have a huge effect. We do not know, which is why we are researching it. However, regardless of it's impact on the climate, no good can come from changing the chemistry of the atmosphere. If you disagree with that, then you're not very bright. If you don't understand how adding CO2 and taking away trees changes the chemistry of the atmosphere, again, you're not very bright. It isn't like I am using complex science here man. This is basic stuff. I don't need a PhD in Environmental Science, Chemistry, Fluid Dynamics, Atmospheric Sciences, and Anal Fermenting to comprehend that messing with something as delicate as the atmosphere is not the best idea.

Point 4: I never said that, or even remotely came close to saying that. I have stated that if man is effecting climate change in a negative way, and we continue doing so, the consequences probably aren't going to be good. But, I never even came close to saying what you claim I did.

Point 5: Right, more illogical conclusions based upon things you think I said in the posts you hardly read.

Want my actual thoughts in a point by point format?

1) The primary function of life is to reproduce and survive, this includes human beings.

2) Human beings are negatively effecting the atmosphere with their overly consumptive behaviors, and pollute the planet to an extreme amount. (Quick note, the highest point in RI is the Johnston Landfill...)

3) Humans pumping ridiculous amounts of unnecessary CO2 (non breathing CO2) into the atmosphere, along with their other forms of polluting, may or may not be a leading factor in the climate change we are seeing currently, and overpopulation does not help this issue.

4) Overpopulation will solve itself, as it always does in nature, but humans can help keep their planet livable and healthy by reducing the amount of CO2 and other pollutants that they release into the atmosphere, into the water, and over the land.

5) If humans do not change their ways, and pollution continues to grow at an exponential rate, the Earth will eventually become uninhabitable for human (and most other) life.

Me, I think there is a big point. Just because we don't know how much of an impact we are having on climate change doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that we are ruining the Earth in more ways than one. If our CO2 issues aren't causing any problems now, how about in ten years when another 60 billion trees will have been cut down, the Earth's population is beyond 10 billion, and the number of automobiles has tripled due to the industrialization of mainland China, India, among others? If we start changing now, before there is no known problem, isn't that better than waiting until there is a problem?

[Monkeypox]

That was a large rant to admit that you have beliefs without knowledge, and you want Americans to adopt changes based on your beliefs. You're a theist, and your god is "the environment."

Did biology fail when the dinosaurs became extinct?

[CMJ]

Did biology fail when the dinosaurs became extinct?

No, but Jupiter did. Its gravity typically captures random space rocks before they get to us.

[yyz28]

1) The primary function of life is to reproduce and survive, this includes human beings.

2) Human beings are negatively effecting the atmosphere with their overly consumptive behaviors, and pollute the planet to an extreme amount. (Quick note, the highest point in RI is the Johnston Landfill...)

3) Humans pumping ridiculous amounts of unnecessary CO2 (non breathing CO2) into the atmosphere, along with their other forms of polluting, may or may not be a leading factor in the climate change we are seeing currently, and overpopulation does not help this issue.

4) Overpopulation will solve itself, as it always does in nature, but humans can help keep their planet livable and healthy by reducing the amount of CO2 and other pollutants that they release into the atmosphere, into the water, and over the land.

5) If humans do not change their ways, and pollution continues to grow at an exponential rate, the Earth will eventually become uninhabitable for human (and most other) life.

Can we at least agree there is a different between climate change and pollution? Dirty water is a micro problem, climate change if it IS man made is a macro problem. We have had major positive strides on combating and preventing pollution.