Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Paradyme]

LOL, what a crock of crap.

my thoughts exactly.

 

[Carcharodon]

my thoughts exactly.

Based on....what, exactly?

I'm genuinely curious: what causes somebody not from the scientific community to discount anthropogenic climate change as crap?

Please don't misunderstand: as a scientist, I'm forced to acknowledge the possibility that these current trends are not anthropogenic, though the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. In other words, by my very nature I'm forced to be something of a skeptic in these matters, and I'd LOVE to see a purely scientific debate on the issue.

Still, it seems as though everybody has strong opinions on the topic. It makes sense that people are jumping onto the climate change bandwagon, especially since they've seen that scientists overwhelmingly tend to support the idea.

What I'm curious about is why the other side takes the opposing view, and what they base their decisions on.

 

[SuBe]

How are you FORCED? If you don't mind me asking.

 

[Carcharodon]

How are you FORCED? If you don't mind me asking.

It's a legitimate question, and I'll see if I can answer it...

In science, virtually nothing is ever 100% proven. Not anthropogenic climate change, not relativity theory, nothing (even though we DO apply relativity theory in practical applications). Everything is based on probabilities and outcomes (basically). You begin to walk into dangerous territory when you begin making absolute statements.

By the very nature of science and the scientific method, even if you have 1,000,000 observations supporting a hypothesis or theory, it only really takes ONE contrary observation to force a complete re-working of an existing theory or model, if it can't be explained within the context and parameters of the existing model....and that last part is really important, and very relevant to the debate at hand. That's where a lot of the debate actually lies.

Here's how it was first described to me:

Hypothesis: All (Species X) are black.

You observe 1,000,000,000 black animals, and then observe a single white animal of Species X.

This observation cannot be explained under the existing hypothesis, so the hypothesis must be thrown out or changed to accommodate the new observation.

A severe oversimplification, but I think you get the point. It's sort of a science-philosophy thing.

 

[Paradyme]

Based on....what, exactly?

I'm genuinely curious: what causes somebody not from the scientific community to discount anthropogenic climate change as crap?

Please don't misunderstand: as a scientist, I'm forced to acknowledge the possibility that these current trends are not anthropogenic, though the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. In other words, by my very nature I'm forced to be something of a skeptic in these matters, and I'd LOVE to see a purely scientific debate on the issue.

Still, it seems as though everybody has strong opinions on the topic. It makes sense that people are jumping onto the climate change bandwagon, especially since they've seen that scientists overwhelmingly tend to support the idea.

What I'm curious about is why the other side takes the opposing view, and what they base their decisions on.

The climate is changing, obviously but are we causing it? In my opinion, no. How arrogant as a people do we think we are that we can honestly affect the weather. The world has gone through numerous cycles of heating and cooling and heating and cooling and it heated up just recently now we are in a global cooling.

I hear these global warming fanatics claim we need to eliminate all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Well, if we did we would die. Our bodies produce it. We could limit it but whats the point when the facts point to us having very little impact on the environment.

Look I don't care to talk much on the subject but this:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Is enough for me to say its all a crock of crap.

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

 

[The Senator]

I hear these global warming fanatics claim we need to eliminate all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Well, if we did we would die. Our bodies produce it. We could limit it but whats the point when the facts point to us having very little impact on the environment.

I haven't been around these parts in a while, and what little I have had a chance to read made me realize that getting into an argument wasn't worth the stress. However, the assumptions raised in this paragraph are so incredibly wrong I have no choice but to respond.

NO ONE-- I repeat, NO ONE-- who has any basic understanding of the climate change phenomenon and the science surrounding it goes around claiming that all carbon dioxide needs to be removed from the atmosphere. That is the most anti-intellectual thing I have read in weeks.

Every rational, intelligent, and competent environmentalist I know is aware that the earth requires carbon dioxide to survive. The problem is, the earth can only handle so much of it before its natural cycles are sent off balance.

Everyone can survive with a minute level of carbon monoxide in their homes; in fact, we all have traces of carbon monoxide in our homes as of this moment. However, too much of it is dangerous. Too much could subject us to serious health problems, the most serious of which being death itself. Hence why many local residential laws require carbon monoxide detectors in the home, hence why people voluntarily measure carbon monoxide levels... it is a precautionary step taken to assure our health and safety.

With carbon dioxide, the argument is that too much carbon dioxide is causing the earth to trap infrared heat as it is refracted by the earth itself. Too much carbon dioxide is trapping heat inside the planet, and causing adverse effects which result in "climate change." Rational, intelligent, and competent environmentalists are not arguing that the earth is too hot or too cold; they notice that climate change is occurring, that the natural cycles have become so off balance that the planet is unable to maintain itself.

The argument is NOT to get rid of all carbon dioxide; the argument is to REDUCE carbon dioxide to a sustainable level, so that our natural cycles are not thrown off balance.

To insist that environmentalists want to get rid of all carbon dioxide is about as absurd as claiming that all conservatives think Christianity should be the law of the land.

Look I don't care to talk much on the subject but this:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Is enough for me to say its all a crock of crap.

31k scientists as opposed to....?

I mean, 31k is a pretty big number... but that little blurb left out how many scientists actually believe global warming is a real problem.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Let's see where it ranks when we actually see the effects of doing nothing to prevent global warming.

To be fair, issues like the economy, education, health care, terrorism, our fiscal policies, immigration, and whatnot are more pressing issues for the time being.

Though moral decline, lobbyists, tax cuts, and trade policy being above global warming is a load of crap.

 

[Paradyme]

I haven't been around these parts in a while, and what little I have had a chance to read made me realize that getting into an argument wasn't worth the stress. However, the assumptions raised in this paragraph are so incredibly wrong I have no choice but to respond.

Welcome back.

NO ONE-- I repeat, NO ONE-- who has any basic understanding of the climate change phenomenon and the science surrounding it goes around claiming that all carbon dioxide needs to be removed from the atmosphere. That is the most anti-intellectual thing I have read in weeks.

Well, like I said in my previous posts I said FANATICS, not environmentalists. There is a fanatical branch for every rational branch.

Every rational, intelligent, and competent environmentalist I know is aware that the earth requires carbon dioxide to survive. The problem is, the earth can only handle so much of it before its natural cycles are sent off balance.

Everyone can survive with a minute level of carbon monoxide in their homes; in fact, we all have traces of carbon monoxide in our homes as of this moment. However, too much of it is dangerous. Too much could subject us to serious health problems, the most serious of which being death itself. Hence why many local residential laws require carbon monoxide detectors in the home, hence why people voluntarily measure carbon monoxide levels... it is a precautionary step taken to assure our health and safety.

With carbon dioxide, the argument is that too much carbon dioxide is causing the earth to trap infrared heat as it is refracted by the earth itself. Too much carbon dioxide is trapping heat inside the planet, and causing adverse effects which result in "climate change." Rational, intelligent, and competent environmentalists are not arguing that the earth is too hot or too cold; they notice that climate change is occurring, that the natural cycles have become so off balance that the planet is unable to maintain itself.

How can the earth which has been around for approx. 4.5 billion years all the sudden not be able to take care of itself? Because we are producing to much carbon dioxide?

I'm sorry but I'm just not buying into it. To me its a farce and the fact that some people, fanaticals, are trying to make it to where you are considered to have a mental disorder if you disagree is preposterous. They are trying to state it as FACT when as another poster has stated when there are legitimate arguments about the existence of something or throwing a monkey wrench into it causes the previous hypothesis to be changed.

I believe it to be a farce because I'm not arrogant enough to feel that we are doing that much damage to a planet by ourselves just by living our lives. When billions of years have gone by just fine. Sure things have changed but I don't think Carbon Dioxide which plants produce and have been here more then likely longer then we have makes us the cause of the problem.

Don't take this the wrong way but I have no problem changing things. I don't care if they found a better source of fuel. I don't care if they find a better source for energy. What I do care about is the fact that they want to eliminate all of our previous sources before we have even built the new form. You can't honestly sit there and tell me no one has proposed that.

The argument is NOT to get rid of all carbon dioxide; the argument is to REDUCE carbon dioxide to a sustainable level, so that our natural cycles are not thrown off balance.

To insist that environmentalists want to get rid of all carbon dioxide is about as absurd as claiming that all conservatives think Christianity should be the law of the land.

Never said environmentalists.

31k scientists as opposed to....?

I mean, 31k is a pretty big number... but that little blurb left out how many scientists actually believe global warming is a real problem.

So, we should discard 31k scientists because 'majority' of people agree about global warming? I'm sorry but if thats the case I'm claiming tyranny of majority.

 

[Carcharodon]

How can the earth which has been around for approx. 4.5 billion years all the sudden not be able to take care of itself? Because we are producing to much carbon dioxide?

The earth has in place natural systems of balances that ultimately keep things like the distribution of carbon in check. Reserves of oil is a major way that the planet keeps carbon locked away, rendering it temporarily unavailable to act upon other environmental factors.

You can't expect one of these systems to remain in working order when you disrupt them in a major way. We've burned through an astronomical amount of oil. We've released carbon that would otherwise not be acting in our environment.

Of course the earth will be okay eventually, and life will go on. What people can't seem to realize is that even small changes can have large effects, and that if current trends and theories hold fast we'll be seeing major effects ecologically and, consequently, economically.

I believe it to be a farce because I'm not arrogant enough to feel that we are doing that much damage to a planet by ourselves just by living our lives. When billions of years have gone by just fine. Sure things have changed but I don't think Carbon Dioxide which plants produce and have been here more then likely longer then we have makes us the cause of the problem.

Your argument would hold more water if we were living within the parameters of the past couple billions of years, but we're not. I don't think you understand how important it is that no other organism in that time has burned fossil fuels for energy.

You can't argue that events will follow an existing natural pattern when what we're doing hasn't been done before...ever. In the planet's entire history.

By the way: carbon dioxide is making the oceans more acidic. I'd call that damage, and a problem that gets WAY less attention than it needs. The scary thing is that there is more certainty behind an anthropogenic cause of ocean acidification than there is behind climate change.

 

[Carcharodon]

How arrogant as a people do we think we are that we can honestly affect the weather.

How dangerous is it to think we can't?

I hear these global warming fanatics claim we need to eliminate all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Well, if we did we would die. Our bodies produce it.

Our bodies produce it as waste; if we eliminated carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we could live...until the world's plants die. THEN we die. There's no direct physiological benefit to us from atmospheric carbon dioxide, though. Small nitpick.

We could limit it but whats the point when the facts point to us having very little impact on the environment.

How do the facts point to that, again? If it were that simple, I don't think there would still be such debate.

 

[Paradyme]

The earth has in place natural systems of balances that ultimately keep things like the distribution of carbon in check. Reserves of oil is a major way that the planet keeps carbon locked away, rendering it temporarily unavailable to act upon other environmental factors.

You can't expect one of these systems to remain in working order when you disrupt them in a major way. We've burned through an astronomical amount of oil. We've released carbon that would otherwise not be acting in our environment.

Of course the earth will be okay eventually, and life will go on. What people can't seem to realize is that even small changes can have large effects, and that if current trends and theories hold fast we'll be seeing major effects ecologically and, consequently, economically.

Your argument would hold more water if we were living within the parameters of the past couple billions of years, but we're not. I don't think you understand how important it is that no other organism in that time has burned fossil fuels for energy.

You can't argue that events will follow an existing natural pattern when what we're doing hasn't been done before...ever. In the planet's entire history.

By the way: carbon dioxide is making the oceans more acidic. I'd call that damage, and a problem that gets WAY less attention than it needs. The scary thing is that there is more certainty behind an anthropogenic cause of ocean acidification than there is behind climate change.

Okay. I understand. I still believe that the planet would eventually adjust. It would evolve/adapt to it but like I said earlier I don't mind if they are looking for other forms of energy as long as they work. What I do care about is the government being in control of what I can and can't do.

I care if I get taxed more because I or other people are being taxed because they still drive a vehicle that gives off fossil fuels. I care that there are fanatics out there that want me to be considered to have a mental disorder because I don't wholeheartedly agree that Global Warming is 100% man made.

 

[Paradyme]

How dangerous is it to think we can't?

Our bodies produce it as waste; if we eliminated carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we could live...until the world's plants die. THEN we die. There's no direct physiological benefit to us from atmospheric carbon dioxide, though. Small nitpick.

How do the facts point to that, again? If it were that simple, I don't think there would still be such debate.

I don't have the article on me but it was something like us, as Americans, only make up .5% of carbon emissions.

I'll try to find the article or try to get the source for that for you but thats the problem. There are facts saying otherwise but people are dictating that it is not up for debate anymore when there clearly never was one in the first place. People just bought into it.

 

[Carcharodon]

I care if I get taxed more because I or other people are being taxed because they still drive a vehicle that gives off fossil fuels. I care that there are fanatics out there that want me to be considered to have a mental disorder because I don't wholeheartedly agree that Global Warming is 100% man made.

I understand.

 

[Paradyme]

Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx

 

[The Senator]

Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx

Why does this even matter? It doesn't matter what your average layman thinks. The majority of Americans believe God exists even though there is no scientific evidence proving such a thing; so an "increased number" of people who don't believe global warming is real should be taken with the same grain of salt.

 

[SuBe]

Why does this even matter? It doesn't matter what your average layman thinks. The majority of Americans believe God exists even though there is no scientific evidence proving such a thing; so an "increased number" of people who don't believe global warming is real should be taken with the same grain of salt.

So, the Majority of people vote for Obama, for "change", and so Obama is supposed to have total control over the direction of the country.

But, if there is growing number of people that don't believe in Global Warming, it doesn't Matter?

So, the Majority Argument is only good when it is for your cause?

 

[The Senator]

So, the Majority of people vote for Obama, for "change", and so Obama is supposed to have total control over the direction of the country.

But, if there is growing number of people that don't believe in Global Warming, it doesn't Matter?

So, the Majority Argument is only good when it is for your cause?

There's a difference between electing a leader and agreeing on whether science is accurate. But thanks for the stretch.

 

[SuBe]

I don't see the difference, one uses Government for their Political Ideology, the other uses Sciences to push it's Political Ideology through Government.

 

[The Senator]

So, if the majority of Americans didn't believe in gravity, would that automatically make gravity fictitious?

 

[StorminNorman]

If there was growing data supporting the idea that gravity doesn't' exist I would want the debate to be had on it.

 

[SuBe]

So, if the majority of Americans didn't believe in gravity, would that automatically make gravity fictitious?

If the Majority of Americans believed Gravity to be fictitious, should they be allowed to pick the Next President?

 

[gap5ewl]

If the Majority of Americans believed Gravity to be fictitious, should they be allowed to pick the Next President?

A majority of Americans think dinosaurs were humans pets and they are allowed to vote.

 

[Handsome Rob]

A majority of Americans think dinosaurs were humans pets and they are allowed to vote.

Source?

 

[Handsome Rob]

If there was growing data supporting the idea that gravity doesn't' exist I would want the debate to be had on it.

Best answer, and how apropo.

 

[SuBe]

A majority of Americans think dinosaurs were humans pets and they are allowed to vote.

It's impossible to have one majority over another majority. You can't have two "More than 50%'s". Its impossible. So, which is it?