Post: #26

If global warming was really a concern, wouldn't Al Gore be doing something about it?

Quote:Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Then again, it goes back to the hypocrisy of the liberals. "Do as I say, not as I do".

By that logic, every time I vote for gun control, I should be able to shoot someone.

Post: #27

Hilarious.

OMG SEVENTEEN YEARS!!1!one! That's like two whole eras in geological terms. Can you explain why the pH of the ocean is decreasing? Can you explain the marked increase in flooding? Can you explain the marked increase in severe storms? Are you even aware of basic physics wherein IR active molecules absorb, vibrate, and release heat? And yes, the average temperature is increasing. I don't deny that the climate changes on its own, but there is irrefutable evidence that humans are contributing.

Furthermore, if you acknowledge that the climate changes organically over hundreds and thousands of years, then why are you holding seventeen years up as being remotely relevant?

Have you read any of the scientific literature on the subject? Have you even taken a 1st year course in introductory chemistry?

I'm the ideologue here? Listen, science isn't ideological. Science and empirical evidence aren't anti-capitalist. They aren't anti freedom or pro big government. Don't be insane. The solutions proposed by leftists or big banks may be all of those things or they may not be, but the basic facts about the climate are none of them.

Post: #28

@durangotang

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-...-1970s.htm --> rebuttal to your global cooling in the 1970s argument
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarcti...ng-ice.htm --> rebuttal to your ice argument
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climateg...hacked.htm --> rebuttal to your climategate scandal argument

@DVY

Lol at double-blind studies...what do you want? Scientists can't create multiple planets and pump one with CO2 and see what differences occur. Double-blind studies are the gold standard, but they're not always realistically achievable. By the same logic, you might as well throw out the entire theory of evolution since you can't replicate it through a double-blind study.

As for controlled variables and meta-data, scientists do take care of those to the best of their abilities. As I'm sure you know, most science is extremely messy and you can't always have 100% certainty of anything. That being said, a 99% probability of global warming happening is good enough for me.



I'm going to say this again: the people behind skepticalscience.com have put in tons of work to inform the general public of the science behind climate change. And so far, I have yet to meet or hear of anyone that has actually debunked this website. So unless you can say you've read the website and you can give a good argument against their points, I can't take you seriously.

Post: #29

In all honesty though, people on this topic arguing in favor of global warming aren't necessarily arguing for Al Gore, leftist agenda, etc. I don't necessarily agree with all the international climate conventions etc that happen. And yes, I do think most politicians are full of shit (including Al Gore and his outrageous electricity bill). But just because the politics is foolish, doesn't mean it invalidates the science.

Post: #30

(09-16-2013 05:10 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  In all honesty though, people on this topic arguing in favor of global warming aren't necessarily arguing for Al Gore, leftist agenda, etc. I don't necessarily agree with all the international climate conventions etc that happen. And yes, I do think most politicians are full of shit (including Al Gore and his outrageous electricity bill). But just because the politics is foolish, doesn't mean it invalidates the science.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are aligned with Al or your not. This is like you scribbling out certain elements on the periodic chart just cause you don't like them. Picking and choosing is a woman's tactic.

Post: #31

Ghenhis Khan and Wadsworth, you guys seem to have a pretty solid understanding of the science behind climate change, unlike myself but I'd like to know what actions you are in favor of implementing? Do you think these big government, trans-national schemes such as the Kyoto Accord and carbon credits would actually work?

Myself, I'm a fan of people being educated in what they can do in their own personal lives to help save the earth; recycling, using public transportation, cycling, living in smaller houses, etc. I also don't mind governments using some money to fund R and D into making existing fossil fuels more efficient, which they are successfully doing, it even benefits the company's bottom line to do so in many cases.

I just don't want to see Canadian (or other industrial nations) industry have to pay massive taxes to transfer wealth, in the form of carbon credits to "poorer" countries, such as China who basically open a massive coal fired power plant every other week and are the single biggest emitter of pollution in the world today.

Post: #32

(09-16-2013 05:14 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:10 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  In all honesty though, people on this topic arguing in favor of global warming aren't necessarily arguing for Al Gore, leftist agenda, etc. I don't necessarily agree with all the international climate conventions etc that happen. And yes, I do think most politicians are full of shit (including Al Gore and his outrageous electricity bill). But just because the politics is foolish, doesn't mean it invalidates the science.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are aligned with Al or your not. This is like you scribbling out certain elements on the periodic chart just cause you don't like them. Picking and choosing is a woman's tactic.

This makes no sense. So if Al suddenly starts conserving energy like crazy tomorrow, does this make him right?

The real problem is that there are no real alternatives to replacing fossil fuels at the moment. The energy consumption of the world is too great. That is what the people on the "right" and "left" get wrong. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on coming up with cleaner energy solutions.

It also doesn't mean that we shouldn't look into ways to reduce other greenhouse gas emissions, like methane, etc. A cost-to-benefit analysis should always be used when assessing these decisions, which is sorely needed since people seem to not be taking this into account when they talk about what to do.

Post: #33

Scotian,

I'm in favor of funding research into alternative energy. We're gonna be dependent on oil for the foreseeable future, but we need to start making alternative energy sources viable. Thorium is a good candidate, and solar is even better. Cold fusion is the dream. There's a ton of research going on for organic and inorganic based materials for solar power. There's also alot of inorganic based materials research for CO2 trapping. I'd rather fund research that can trap CO2 than pay Kyoto penalties.

Whether that research is funded by the taxpayer (more socialist approach), or whether the government gives incentives for research in the private sector (more capitalist approach), or some combination of the two, I think that's pretty important.

I agree with you about some of these politicized solutions that aren't very effective. I was OK with Canada withdrawing from Kyoto. The amount of $ we were forking over could have been spent on research or any other number of Canadian domestic projects.

I'd probably also give tax credit to those who buy fuel efficient vehicles or make energy efficient modifications to their homes. I don't like the idea of a carbon tax and "cap and trade" though.

Post: #34

(09-16-2013 05:31 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  Scotian,

I'm in favor of funding research into alternative energy. We're gonna be dependent on oil for the foreseeable future, but we need to start making alternative energy sources viable. Thorium is a good candidate, and solar is even better. Cold fusion is the dream. There's a ton of research going on for organic and inorganic based materials for solar power. There's also alot of inorganic based materials research for CO2 trapping. I'd rather fund research that can trap CO2 than pay Kyoto penalties.

Whether that research is funded by the taxpayer (more socialist approach), or whether the government gives incentives for research in the private sector (more capitalist approach), or some combination of the two, I think that's pretty important.

I agree with you about some of these politicized solutions that aren't very effective. I was OK with Canada withdrawing from Kyoto. The amount of $ we were forking over could have been spent on research or any other number of Canadian domestic projects.

I'd probably also give tax credit to those who buy fuel efficient vehicles or make energy efficient modifications to their homes. I don't like the idea of a carbon tax and "cap and trade" though.

I've worked on some government/industry funded projects, as I mentioned, the one in Sask and also up in Fort Mac and I'm okay with them, especially since I get to make money off of them, although sometimes I wonder why multinational "Big Oil" companies need Canadian taxpayers money to fund these research projects, politics, I guess.

Its just hard to say which ones will be viable and which ones will be a white elephant, a few years ago government and industry installed a test turbine at the Bay of Fundy (largest tides in the world) in my home province of Nova Scotia. The thing cost over $10 million and failed to work, from this article, "An early attempt to test a turbine in this spot did not turn out well. In 2009, Nova Scotia Power and a partner, Irish company OpenHydro, deployed a $10-million prototype turbine, but the tidal current ripped the blades off the device."

I'd rather see my tax dollars go to more realistic ventures such as improved public transport, something much needed in Alberta or incentives for people to consume less.

Post: #35

If only there was a gov't agency, that regulated everything within the environment, that would keep us safe from ourselves and look out for our best interests.

Enigma, you seem very concerned with the planet. But to perpetuate the falsehood that species of plants and animals didn't perish regularly before the introduction of humans is dishonest.

Post: #36

I know and talk to an amazingly diverse of people, but I'll keep this short.

Group A

Very intelligent and highly educated people from many disciplines. Things they say concerning global warming:

"I see too many reports contradicting"
"Too much evidence is shown against"
"Its hard to form an opinion on what is shown"
"In my opinion I don't believe in GW, or at least to the extent claimed"

Group B

Liberal Arts wearing hemp and reeks of patchouli. Things they say concerning global warming:

"Like fuck yeah you're killing the environment"
"Who needs a study just look around"
"I learned this shit in college. Fuck you"
"Science is god, and it says GW is real"
"I know the ice caps are shrinking, saw it on my tv"


The latter group makes it tough to believe their argument. Again, liberals massing towards another cause to be fanatical about. Same as gun control, rape, womens rights, gender inequality, ect.

Post: #37

(09-16-2013 06:44 PM)Fisto Wrote:  If only there was a gov't agency, that regulated everything within the environment, that would keep us safe from ourselves and look out for our best interests.

Enigma, you seem very concerned with the planet. But to perpetuate the falsehood that species of plants and animals didn't perish regularly before the introduction of humans is dishonest.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/progr...on_crisis/

It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day[1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel.

Post: #38

Well that just solves it for me. I'm switching sides because biologicaldiversity.org said I should be a self loathing human.

Post: #39

(09-16-2013 07:49 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  I know and talk to an amazingly diverse of people, but I'll keep this short.

Group A

Very intelligent and highly educated people from many disciplines. Things they say concerning global warming:

"I see too many reports contradicting"
"Too much evidence is shown against"
"Its hard to form an opinion on what is shown"
"In my opinion I don't believe in GW, or at least to the extent claimed"

Group B

Liberal Arts wearing hemp and reeks of patchouli. Things they say concerning global warming:

"Like fuck yeah you're killing the environment"
"Who needs a study just look around"
"I learned this shit in college. Fuck you"
"Science is god, and it says GW is real"
"I know the ice caps are shrinking, saw it on my tv"


The latter group makes it tough to believe their argument. Again, liberals massing towards another cause to be fanatical about. Same as gun control, rape, womens rights, gender inequality, ect.

Group A: Appeal to authority.
Group B: Ad hominem.

Do you have an actual logical argument against global warming? Or just fallacies?

Post: #40

@Scotian,

in my honest opinion, we need to focus on technologies that do two things:
1. save $$$
2. be easy to use

People are inherently selfish. I've told some lefties to go vegetarian as that'll do more good than getting a Prius. Of course they preferred the Prius since it was too hard to go veg. Whatever, that's just how the world works. Might as well play to the tunes of reality and give people something that is easy to use and will save them money.

This is why Kyota protocol etc don't work: there is no real economic incentive to follow them. All these international meetings are focused on who should sacrifice what. No wonder they always fail.

On the other hand, I'm pretty big on solar and its potential:
- check out: http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files...ranium.png
Also real estate wise, seems solar would beat wind and biofuels (although correct me since the renewable energy sector changes extremely rapidly...my info might be outdated).

Additionally, storage technology needs to improve. It's no secret solar can't generate at night. Need ways to store that energy and store it cheaply and efficiently. Also, prices still need to come down. This is where the government needs to work: Invest $$$ into R&D. Once technologies seem realistic, let the private market take care of funding. None of this giving out loans to Solyndra, Tesla Motors crap.
- Private market won't fund research/tech that might not pan out...government step in here
- Private market will pay for research/tech that'll pan out right now

We need to get to a point where prices for solar are so low the debate on global warming is a non-issue: have solar be so cheap you have to be a dumbass not to go with it.

Same goes with electric cars...get them so economically viable people want to use them. This does mean R&D investments in batteries etc. Also, think about it: how awesome would it be if you could plug in your car at night (and avoid gas stations) and save $$$. Make it easy, make it cheap.

Hit the two biggest sectors of energy consumption: electricity (with solar) and transportation (also actually with electricity through solar):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USenergy2009.jpg

Post: #41

I remember when I came home from elementary school one day, telling my dad (who is a fairly prominent astronomer) what I'd learned about global warming and helping the environment.

Par for the course, he tells me, "Dude, humans might very well kill each other off and take a whole lot of species with us. But don't think for a second that the Earth gives a flying fuck what we do."

That video was quite compelling, but even beyond that I still hold what my dad said to heart. I love nature, I'm a huge nature boy. I love snorkeling, camping, animals, the great outdoors and all that shit. Man's true place is in nature. We can pillage and rape nature and kill off millions of species per hour and it won't make a single goddamn fucking difference, and it's incredibly egocentric to think as much.

I would go so far as to say it's not only possible, but LIKELY that there have been several dominant species, like humans, with higher intelligence, that wiped out much of the planet's biodiversity and then ultimately themselves, several times over.

All of what we think we know about the Earth over the past 5 billion years are educated guesses. We naturally want to create and craft a story that is endlessly fascinating to consider, and there are thousands of scientist across the globe put to the task of figuring this shit out, but the truth is we just don't know. We assume that just because there's a fossil record, that we can assume what the world was like. But talk to any archaeologist and they will tell you; fossils are extremely rare and occur only under VERY specific and rare conditions. There is not a SINGLE complete human ancestor fossil. Not ONE. We only have the slightest hint at what our ancestors were like, and those fossils are quite recent in terms of earth's storyline. Whatever we THINK we know about the past is just the tiniest fragment.

Probably the most common fossil is that of the trilobite, which may as well have been the Prehistoric cockroach, capable of surviving damn near anything. We think we're so important and have such an influence on the earth? We, Homo sapien, have been around for 60,000 years. Trilobites were around for 300 MILLION years and it took a goddamn global extinction, probably from an asteroid, to end them.

We're incredibly unique, no doubt. But I don't believe for a second that we're the only higher-intelligence species that has existed on this planet. And I don't believe for a second that we are as nearly impactful as some think we are. We could wipe out every species on earth that exists today and that would still be a tiny fraction of every plant, animal, bacteria, and virus that has existed, ever. Our sun has another 5 billion years or so to go. Even if a nuclear war or another asteroid wiped out all life for a 5 million year period, there would be 1,000s of multi-million-year spans for intelligent life to abound once more.

Our reference point to time spans are the human lifetime; it's naturally how we gauge progress within the generations. In Earth-time this isn't even a heartbeat, it's not even a fart. We also take it for granted that there exists polar ice caps and deserts on Earth simultaneously; this is also, in cosmic terms, a rarity. In cosmic terms, we're enjoying an incredibly lush and temperate phase. But just as there are seasons on earth, there are seasons in the solar system, and any fluctuations in the Earth's or Sun's magnetic field could turn the entire earth into a sweltering, overbearingly humid, methane-ridden swamp, or conversely a giant block of ice.

Enjoy your time here gents, in cosmic terms we're in Spring break

Post: #42

(09-16-2013 12:22 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Humans have killed off entire species of animals,

95% of all animals that have ever existed are also extinct. Most of them prior to humans being in existence.

Quote:we cut down whole forests daily,

We also plant them daily, most of the western world has more forests than 100 years ago when we needing much more grazing land for horses prior to the automobile.

Quote:we spill oil into the ocean, we throw our non-biodegradeable trash everywhere, and we are depleting all of the planet's natural resources. There has a been a fucking nuclear reactor in Japan leaking radiation for the past two years.

And you've got guys who can't see the forest for the trees arguing about what temperature it was at this time last year and other talking points. I don't know nor do I care whether "global warming" is truly taking place. It is, however, a FACT that we are rapidly destroying Earth and I'm not mad at anything that brings more awareness to the situation.

It isn't a 'fact' at all, there is no conclusive outcome for AGW, and the alternative theory or contemporary global warming, Henreik Svensmarks, is a more solid case.

Post: #43

(09-16-2013 03:36 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Some new ideas for the next rebranding:
Climate Rapists
Weather Misogynists
Environmental Oppressors

Check your carbon privilege!

Post: #44

DVY Wrote:My point is echoed across several other posters word. "Science" nowadays is a bunch of bullshit- pie charts, data, and A->B ->C schematics thats seem to point to a conclusion. Where are the controlled variables, double-blind studies, and meta-data?

How would you do a double-blind study in this regard? We don't have two planets. I'll admit that I'm not an expert in this field, I just have basic knowledge of biology/physics/chemistry and I know geography well. Still, looking at these reports and the data provided, I am getting the impression that they are solid and that no obsfucation is going on. Being based on numbers that anyone can measure, it's not like feminist "science" where any fool can provide loaded questions and expand terms ad infinitum (such as "economic abuse" and similar bull).

That said, what Aliblahbla posted about Al Gore is more disconcerting than skeptics posting a few holes in the overall climatological theory. The man should put his money where his mouth is, otherwise he is just a sham. If anything, not by recklessly using energy but by providing an example of hypocrisy, he is contributing to the inaction on this issue.

Post: #45

@Fisto: I never claimed myself or anyone should be self-loathing? I just try to be informed and do the little things that I can like eat more organic foods, recycle, and monitor my consumption of things like gas and water. I occasionally pick up small pieces of litter if I have the opportunity. None of these things are hard yet if everyone did them we wouldn't be having these problems.

Humans are obviously going to consume resources. But go your local park and see how many dumb asses have thrown plastic bottles in the pond when there's a trash can 10 feet away. It's pointless stuff like that and corporations/governments who will do anything to increase profit margins that are fucking things up.

I don't feel any more personal guilt for those things than I do for issues like slavery or US foreign policies. Sure, I may have indirectly benefited from some of it but I'm not going to beat myself up over something I don't actually control.

@The Dude: Very good point. The Earth itself doesn't have anything to worry about. It will bounce back from anything given 10 million years or so. However, that doesn't really help selfish bastards like ourselves and our subsequent generations who won't be alive millions of years from now.

(09-17-2013 12:17 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:22 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Humans have killed off entire species of animals,

95% of all animals that have ever existed are also extinct. Most of them prior to humans being in existence.

Quote:we cut down whole forests daily,

We also plant them daily, most of the westenr world has more forrests than 100 years ago when we needing much more grazingland for horses prior to the automobile.

Quote:we spill oil into the ocean, we throw our non-biodegradeable trash everywhere, and we are depleting all of the planet's natural resources. There has a been a fucking nuclear reactor in Japan leaking radiation for the past two years.

And you've got guys who can't see the forest for the trees arguing about what temperature it was at this time last year and other talking points. I don't know nor do I care whether "global warming" is truly taking place. It is, however, a FACT that we are rapidly destroying Earth and I'm not mad at anything that brings more awareness to the situation.

It isn't a 'fact' at all, there is no conclusive outcome for AGW, and the alternative theory or contemporary global warming, Henreik Svensmarks, is a more solid case.

1. I've already addressed this issue. This is like shooting someone and then using the fact that everyone dies as your defense in court. Humans are accelerating this process towards the brink of a man-made mass extinction. I haven't seen much information refuting this but I'd definitely be interested in seeing some if you have it. There is disagreement about how high the extinction rate is but even the lowest estimates put it at 100 times the background (or natural) rate.

2. It takes more than 100 years for rainforests to grow, species to evolve, and ecosystems to develop but I'm definitely interested in seeing your source for this information because I find it hopeful although difficult to believe.

3. I have never said global warming was a fact. I actually specifically said I didn't know if it was true in the post that you quoted so I'm not sure what you're even arguing here.

In relating to The Dude's point, I am speaking of the Earth being destroyed more as it relates to humans and other life in the present time, not as a planet itself.

Post: #46

(09-17-2013 01:33 AM)Enigma Wrote:  1. I've already addressed this issue. This is like shooting someone and then using the fact that everyone dies as your defense in court. Humans are accelerating this process towards the brink of a man-made mass extinction. I haven't seen much information refuting this but I'd definitely be interested in seeing some if you have it.

You need to be provided evidence that some animal species becamse extinct prior to humans?

I won't deny human activity such as habitat destruction (outside of AGW) has a high marginal rate of species extinction, but this is an AGW argument, and AGW is still a fringe theory built on dubious science.

Quote:There is disagreement about how high the extinction rate is but even the lowest estimates put it at 100 times the background (or natural) rate.

OK?

We are the enviroment, species adapt to environments, i thought Charles Darwin made this clear.

Quote:2. It takes more than 100 years for rainforests to grow, species to evolve, and ecosystems to develop but I'm definitely interested in seeing your source for this information because I find it hopeful although difficult to believe.

Some species of insects have had dramatic evolutionary paths observed in less than 200 years. However, i am not saying once absent forests have restored to their full splendor, I am saying we are regressing from a consuming path that was evident 100+ years ago. As I said, many former fields that were used to grow fodder for horses, particularly in Europe, has now been reclaimed for (young) forest. it is symptomatic of behavioural change, not (yet) of environmental strucutural change.

But that said, I am not doubting humans are having an impact, what i disputing is the Malthusian chattering of historically hig rates as an Armageddon scenario.

Quote:3. I have never said global warming was a fact. I actually specifically said I didn't know if it was true in the post that you quoted so I'm not sure what you're even arguing here.

Well looking back again, we shouldn't be arguiing about AGW, I thought you were pointing out AGW as a major contributing factor to the rate of species extinction.

The only thing where we'd disagre is your claim...

Quote:It is, however, a FACT that we are rapidly destroying Earth and I'm not mad at anything that brings more awareness to the situation(**)

It isn't fact.

Fukushima isn't destroying the earth.

High rates of species extinction isn't destroying the earth.

Oil spills and long age degrading trash isn't destroying the earth.

Our current rates of non-renewable mineral consumption isn't destroying the earth.

Then the (**) marked bit, and now circling back to AGW, our current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't destroying the earth, and to link to something as dubious as AGW should be called out.

Post: #47

(09-17-2013 01:48 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 01:33 AM)Enigma Wrote:  1. I've already addressed this issue. This is like shooting someone and then using the fact that everyone dies as your defense in court. Humans are accelerating this process towards the brink of a man-made mass extinction. I haven't seen much information refuting this but I'd definitely be interested in seeing some if you have it.

You need to be provided evidence that some animal species becamse extinct prior to humans?

I won't deny human activity such as habitat destruction (outside of AGW) has a high marginal rate of species extinction, but this is an AGW argument, and AGW is still a fringe theory built on dubious science.

Quote:There is disagreement about how high the extinction rate is but even the lowest estimates put it at 100 times the background (or natural) rate.

OK?

We are the enviroment, species adapt to environments, i thought Charles Darwin made this clear.

Quote:2. It takes more than 100 years for rainforests to grow, species to evolve, and ecosystems to develop but I'm definitely interested in seeing your source for this information because I find it hopeful although difficult to believe.

Some species of insects have had dramatic evolutionary paths observed in less than 200 years. However, i am not saying once absent forests have restored to their full splendor, I am saying we are regressing from a consuming path that was evident 100+ years ago. As I said, many former fields that were used to grow fodder for horses, particularly in Europe, has now been reclaimed for (young) forest. it is symptomatic of behavioural change, not (yet) of environmental strucutural change.

But that said, I am not doubting humans are having an impact, what i disputing is the Malthusian chattering of historically hig rates as an Armageddon scenario.

Quote:3. I have never said global warming was a fact. I actually specifically said I didn't know if it was true in the post that you quoted so I'm not sure what you're even arguing here.

Well looking back again, we shouldn't be arguiing about AGW, I thought you were pointing out AGW as a major contributing factor to the rate of species extinction.

The only thing where we'd disagre is your claim...

Quote:It is, however, a FACT that we are rapidly destroying Earth and I'm not mad at anything that brings more awareness to the situation(**)

It isn't fact.

Fukushima isn't destroying the earth.

High rates of species extinction isn't destroying the earth.

Oil spills and long age degrading trash isn't destroying the earth.

Our current rates of non-renewable mineral consumption isn't destroying the earth.

Then the (**) marked bit, and now circling back to AGW, our current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't destroying the earth, and to link to something as dubious as AGW should be called out.

1. This is exactly why I said I didn't want to argue about GW. You actually agree with me on the bigger issue here yet are still debating with me about something I am not even supporting and dismissing a very real and very related discussion.

And I don't make this as a personal attack on you but people will sit there and yell about GW all day while they spin in circles and never get anything done. Meanwhile we're distracted from things that are actually happening.

2. This is silly. Species have absolutely no chance of genetically evolving at the same pace as our technological advancement. We have to police ourselves.

3. I agree with you on your first point. However, more needs to be done. And no one said anything about Armageddon. I don't think myself (at least not intentionally) or any scientist has argued that as an outcome of mass extinction. Also, humans could potentially live through a mass extinction it would just really suck.

4. I clarified that point in my last post. I don't think those things are actually destroying Earth as a planet. I am speaking more in terms of Earth as in our environment as living creatures right here, right now. The existence of ourselves and our immediate descendants. I should have been more clear. Those things aren't actually going to destroy Earth itself but they are causing problems in the present and it will take more than our lifetimes to reset. Obviously this will all be forgtotten millions of years from now but we won't be there to see it.

The situation that I referred to "bringing awareness to" is the overall state of the environment. Also, many of the supposed causes of GW aren't particularly good things to be doing anyways. It really would benefit us to find a more sustainable and clean source of energy than oil. It would definitely make the air cleaner and eliminate many of the other problems caused by its acquisition.

Overall, I believe we agree for the most part but we just started off on different wavelengths.

Post: #48

(09-16-2013 05:07 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  @durangotang

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-...-1970s.htm --> rebuttal to your global cooling in the 1970s argument
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarcti...ng-ice.htm --> rebuttal to your ice argument
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climateg...hacked.htm --> rebuttal to your climategate scandal argument

@DVY

Lol at double-blind studies...what do you want? Scientists can't create multiple planets and pump one with CO2 and see what differences occur. Double-blind studies are the gold standard, but they're not always realistically achievable. By the same logic, you might as well throw out the entire theory of evolution since you can't replicate it through a double-blind study.

As for controlled variables and meta-data, scientists do take care of those to the best of their abilities. As I'm sure you know, most science is extremely messy and you can't always have 100% certainty of anything. That being said, a 99% probability of global warming happening is good enough for me.



I'm going to say this again: the people behind skepticalscience.com have put in tons of work to inform the general public of the science behind climate change. And so far, I have yet to meet or hear of anyone that has actually debunked this website. So unless you can say you've read the website and you can give a good argument against their points, I can't take you seriously.

Hahahaha I gotta commend you for your hard work bro.

Honestly seems like most of the people disagreeing don't have much of a grasp of the basics of environmental science (not meant to come off as cocky or insulting). This would be like someone who'd gone to a religious school asserting that evolution doesn't exist without knowing anything of the idea and process.

What I'd be interested to see are people who do have a decent background in climatology (even something as small as a couple basic courses in uni) who still disagree. Any takers?

Post: #49

This thread...

Post: #50

Bad Boys 2 on global warming...