Global Warming: just a myth?

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

I can equally argue that "man is causing global warming" as irrelevant and the planet is always in a state of flux. Fact is, WE DON'T KNOW. We can have our opinions, but no one really knows how much, if at all, man is effecting the planet. They are only theories.

We could shut down all the factories, revert back 100 years to horse and buggy times, but that doesn't mean that global warming will stop. It could just the ebb and flow of the planet. The only way to know for sure would be to try turning our lifestyles back a century, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

Why would we not make the assumption that man is affecting the global climate change.

I understand your argument, but you said it yourself. It's an "assumption". Those are your words, not mine. Assumption is not fact, and all the talking heads in the world aren't going to change that fact. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong.

 

[InhaledDarkness]

I understand your argument, but you said it yourself. It's an "assumption". Those are your words, not mine. Assumption is not fact, and all the talking heads in the world aren't going to change that fact. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong.

i agree 100% with youuu
i really dont know waht to belive, if its true, or nott
it could be a myth, a scam, or it could be something we all need to make an effort to stop
but personally, i havent amde any effort to stop it =]

 

[Wyvern]

I understand your argument, but you said it yourself. It's an "assumption". Those are your words, not mine. Assumption is not fact, and all the talking heads in the world aren't going to change that fact. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong.

C'mon Ryan you couldn't possible believe mankind action on pollution, deforestation, use of ozone depletion gases, etc is not affecting the ecosystems and weather of planet Earth. I can't believe anyone in here can possible believe so!

We cannot bury our head in the sand and say we are not doing anything wrong, I'm not responsible for Earth's demise. I'm the first to accept I'm guilty of polluting the air with the emissions of my car, and not recycling properly and don't give a shit about Earth as LONG AS MY COMFORT SPACE is left untouched. The difference is that I don't have kids I don't give a shit what happens with this planet after I'm gone. But that's me the bastard, what about you?

 

[poundingmetal74]

Biomass is big bowl of bullshit. People think it's environmentally friendly because it has "bio" in front of it.

The whole post was very well written. In terms of energy we have nothing that even comes close to the power and cost benefits of oil.

Nice Carlin quote at the bottom too.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

C'mon Ryan you couldn't possible believe mankind action on pollution, deforestation, use of ozone depletion gases, etc is not affecting the ecosystems and weather of planet Earth.

Agreed, Rolando, I don't deny that at all. ALL things affect our planet, I'm just questioning TO WHAT DEGREE said things are affecting it. And more importantly, how certain big wigs in this country are exploiting and abusing this topic to their advantage.

I'm the first to accept I'm guilty of polluting the air with the emissions of my car, and not recycling properly and don't give a shit about Earth as LONG AS MY COMFORT SPACE is left untouched. The difference is that I don't have kids I don't give a shit what happens with this planet after I'm gone. But that's me the bastard, what about you?

Ditto. I have the luxury of not giving a shit one way or the other. No children, no nephews or neices, my immediate family and current loved ones will be buried within the next 50 years and that's only if one of us lives to be 100 or so. This fact definitely gives me a peace of mind.

 

[SoundMaster]

At the end of the day, I'm not a scientist and, accordingly, have no way of testing any theory on my own. And because of that fact, a little detective work is called for.

I have - or had - my own doubts about how much man has affected things, but much of that doubt was erased when it was revealed that the current US admin paid NASA to "fudge" its findings and views regarding global warming. This made the news for about 5 minutes in 2005 (or was it 2006?) and quickly disappeared (not surprisingly, of course). Now why would the admin go to such lengths? What was do damning that it needed to be swept under the rug?

Common sense tells me that it had to be damning enough that even the common man would have taken notice! Heck, had that happened, there may have actually been enough populace pressure to regulate some of the industries which are alleged to be the greatest contributors to this supposed problem. And, as always, money is the prime move....no way the friends of the admin can accept lawful change which might effect the bottom line.

 

[poundingmetal74]

Is Al Gore a scientist? No. He's a politician. if you're looking to Gore for credibility, remember this: he and wife headed up the PMRC.

When it comes to Kyoto, how is it countries like Russia and China are not called on to cut emissions the way Canada and the US are? This gives them an even greater advantage in the world economy.

If you want to stop carbons, your best bet is looking to stop the OCEANS, as they emit far more CO2 than humans ever could.

 

[poundingmetal74]

If you would have actually read my post, you would see how you're mistaken.

So you're saying Al Gore is in fact a credible scientist AND had nothing to do with the PMRC?

As much as I despise Wikipedia as a source, for arguments sake, here's what Al Gore is recently involved in:

"Today, Gore is chairman of the American television channel Current TV, chairman of Generation Investment Management, a director on the board of Apple Inc., an unofficial advisor to Google's senior management, and chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection.[3] He recently joined venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, to head that firm's climate change solutions group."

Like Cheney being the head of Halliburton and is conflict of interest when it came to Iraq/Afghanistan. Gore receives much of his funding from ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS and is a conflict of interest.

 

[Wyvern]

Actually most CO2 emissions comes from exhaust like cement factories and cars not breating of living creatures.


BTW are we gonna come with a solution, if not we are just ranting in the void

 

[poundingmetal74]

Okay, I'll admit on the Al Gore thing I was wrong. I say we just agree to disagree, and call it a night. The point of me posting the video in the first place was to show that there are alternative viewpoints to the man-made global warming theory, backed up by credible scientists.

I'd like to hear more of what Rolando (Wyvern) has to say on the matter, since he is a scientist.

 

[poundingmetal74]

No, I agree, but they should be given credence when they have SCIENTIFIC backing.

 

[Hawk]

Then again, there are alternative viewpoints to just about everything; not all of them should be given equal credence simply because they exist.

That depends on the view point. For the view point that global warming was cause by human being only some very problematic data exists.
Hardly any evidence.

Have you ever read the info of those that are septics about
man-made global warming?

For instance that Al Gore's movie is political propaganda:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/28/eagore128.xml


There are 35 errors in his movie:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/10/35-inconvenient-truths-errors-in-al.html

You people seem to be arguing that, because the temperature of the earth has fluctuated throughout the millions and millions of years of its history, that the human factor is irrelevant. How many of you have actually kept an eye on the issue here and how many of you are being swayed by videos on youtube? Look up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and see what they have to say.

Their info has been proved wrong again and again:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article2454.html

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html

Whether or not the human factor is the sole or even primary cause for the current global trend of rising temperatures is largely irrelevant if we are part of the equation at all, and it does appear to be the case that we are part of the equation, that we are contributing to global warming and that we can minimize the impact that we have on such a change.

That rests on the unspoken premise that more CO2 in the air would have a negative effect on human life. Or that a warmer climate would be negative for us. There is no positive proof for that:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N43/B1.jsp

Rather plants need CO2 it stimulates their growth.
With more CO2 in the air crops might be grown better and food could be come more abundant.

See here:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Positive-Effects-of-Carbon-Dioxide-for-Plant-Growth&id=1607


And it turns out that the IPCC admits that alternative viewpoints do have a place in the discussion:

From:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N47/EDIT.jsp

Concerning the Current Consensus on Climate Change
Volume 10, Number 47: 21 November 2007​

In a Policy Forum article inspired by the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Oppenheimer et al. (2007) write in the 14 September issue of Science that "with the general credibility of the science of climate change established, it is now equally important that policy-makers understand the more extreme possibilities that consensus may exclude or downplay." Why is that? Because, as they continue, "setting aside or minimizing the importance of key structural uncertainties in underlying processes is a frequent outcome of the drive for consensus."

In light of this illuminating admission, we note that the setting aside of key uncertainties in the climate modeling enterprise could well lead to more extreme possibilities at both ends of the climate prognostication spectrum, such that not only may earth's surface air temperature rise somewhat more than is predicted by the current IPCC consensus, it could equally as easily rise somewhat less than that august group has opined. And for the IPCC's current full range prediction of 21st century warming (1.1-6.4°C), somewhat less warming could well turn out to be indistinguishable from no warming at all.



---


Conclusion: there is a lot of info to read and study before anyone can make such positive, as in strong, statements like you do. You would really have to devote time and effort on both sides of the argument before you would know what really was going on. Mistakes are being made on both sides but there is no real consensus on the data. Besides, in science consensus is completely irrelevant!


Some of the biggest innovations in science were possible because a lone scientists dared to ignore the popular mood of the day by only looking at the data the gathered and defend it like there was no tomorrow.

The last word in this debate has not been spoken by far. We have to wait and see how it turns out.

 

[Wyvern]

I'd like to hear more of what Rolando (Wyvern) has to say on the matter, since he is a scientist.

My position is on the hard edge-don't give a damn.

As much as Earth's climate had experienced severe changes in the past way before mankind existed or had a way to impact the ecosystems I DO believe that pollution coming from emissions, our waste, deforestation and other situations caused by human activity to expand their living environment is deteriorating our planet at an accelerated rate.

Of course we can make an experiment for a complete year nobody will use cars, planes, trains or any locomotive vehicle pushed by oil fuel. No electricity will be generated by thermic plants (depending on diesel), no ozone depleting gases will be emitted during that year, not a single tree will be cut or any forest fire will be allowed to spread. Cement factories will not produce clinker in a whole year, there will be no space exploration or explosions of any type be allowed (thus a year of full peace).
No plastic containers will be dumped and no toxic waste will be generated in anyway (including paint, drugs/medical, tires and many more industries). Let's live a whole year like in the 15th century (but picking up the crap from the horses and dispose it as manure) and sorry but chimneys are not allowed during winter sorry for those on cold climates.

We can measure the gases and other pollutoon indexes before and after the year and see what effect do we have on our planet. Ah and we can expect Santa Claus to give everybody in the planet a gift for being good for a whole year.

Sorry if I sound that depressingly fatalist and sarchastic, can't teach an old dog new tricks. I'm not going to give up my car, my flight to PPIX, my Coke on plastic bottles, the toilet paper or the paper I print on. I like my wood furniture, and frankly I don't give a damn where my waste is going as long as is not my backyard. Since I have no offspring I feel no obligation in leaving it to anyone. Besides Mama Nature will always find a way to change the things long before we driven ourselves to extinction.

 

[poundingmetal74]

My position is on the hard edge-don't give a damn.
As much as Earth's climate had experienced severe changes in the past way before mankind existed or had a way to impact the ecosystems I DO believe that pollution coming from emissions, our waste, deforestation and other situations caused by human activity to expand their living environment is deteriorating our planet at an accelerated rate.

Buddy I totally agree.

 

[wdiv]

Check out Michael Crichton novel "State of Fear"... the book is centered around the contrarian view that the fear surrounding global warming is contrived.
I recognize that it is a work of fiction, and there has been quite a bit of controversy about it... but it is thought provoking nonetheless.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

Like I said, the belief that the sun is going to rise tomorrow is as much of an assumption as is the belief that humanity is impacting the global climate. Yet I'm sure that you believe the former without hesitation, and in fact plan your life according to the premise that you will have daylight the next morning.

I'll also plan my life accordingly to the fact that if man is damaging this planet, it won't implode anytime in my lifetime (or at all, because I believe the Earth would rid itself of stupid, greedy, human life before it would allow its own destruction). So I'm good to go.

Who exactly are these people that you speak of? Are you aware of how much pressure from the international scientific community it took for the Bush administration to even acknowledge the possibility that global warming might be possible? Who are these big wigs that are exploiting global warming (i.e. people with actual power)? Al Gore has fought for the cause of global warming for several decades at this point, so I would hardly accuse him of "exploiting" a matter which he's fought for for possibly longer than you've been alive. Those in Washington who actually have any say in policies have either only begrudgingly acknowledged the possibility of global warming or still outright deny it. Those who believe global warming tend to be 1) Democrat and 2) completely neutered of power.

The same people as before. Politicians and oil companies. They rode the oil cart as long as they could, until turmoil in the Middle East and China's greatly increased demand drove up our gas prices and forced their hand to Ethanol. Which is bullshit in and of itself. It may feed American farmers (I have nothing against that) but it takes more energy to make than what it produces, so what gain is that? Ethanol (as it stands now, mostly fossil-fuel generated) is just another political tool to fool the masses into thinking the government is actually looking out for us, and not their own pocketbooks. Could be Al Gore never became President BECAUSE he didn't have strong ties to right (oil) people and was preaching the wrong message that didn't agree with the powers that be (hanging chad).

Well you're just a lovely person, aren't you?

Actually, I am. If you knew me, and you were one of my close friends, you'd have cause to judge me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person, so as a self-defense mechanism I am required to keep a very small, close-knit world of those I care for. I can honestly say that 90% of the population are people I wouldn't want to have anymore than a casual relationship with. And what might happen to them 50 years down the line isn't something I lose sleep over. If that makes me a bad person in your book, I can live with that. Because I know you probably wouldn't be a friend of mine anyway.

 

[poundingmetal74]

This is an excellent documentary presented very rationally by a SCIENTIST as a companion piece to Inconvenient Truth. Please actually watch this! 20 minutes of your time.

http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/inconvenient3.html

Debate his POINTS and say WHY they are right or wrong.

 

[Hawk]

And another great video from a group of scientists calling themselves Friends of science:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=172

 

[TheWhisper]

I have to say, nothing I could post would add anything to what Hawk has already contributed to this topic -very well done sir. But...

When someone tells me that "the debate is over", as is the case a lot of times concerning proponents of man-made global warming/climate change, I get very worried.

Time Magazine article entitled "Another Ice Age?" published July 24, 1974 - first paragraph:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

...you mean they were wrong then, but spot on now?