|
Global warming.. are we really causing it? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ToF |
Who gives a ?
Both sides of the argument bend the facts to make their argument more convenient. Obviously there are agendas behind "human caused" global warming.
There's tonnes of videos on youtube about this topic including multi-part debates. If you are really that interested then check those out first. But let me warn you, if you are an objective and rational person and you take both sides of the argument into account you'll simply come to the same conclusion as I did which doesn't help because now I have no side. We simply don't have the evidence yet. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
i only have one thing to say on here and them i'm never coming back in this thread.
Meteorologists have a hard time predicting the weather in the 3-5 day range. heck, even sometimes in the 1-3 day range....so how come every Climatologist is for CERTAIN with 100% accuracy that "solution A" is going to happen in year "X" no matter what. How can you be so certain that weather patterns some 20-50 years from now are going to cause such an apocalyptic outcome; when you can't even tell me what the overnight low is going to be on Tuesday.
ps, October of 2009 was the 3rd coldest on record for the CONUS. :o |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
i only have one thing to say on here and them i'm never coming back in this thread. |
Wait, I want you to explain what the difference is between meteorology and climatology. Is a meteorologist also a climatologist? If not, how well do you know their work? |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
i only have one thing to say on here and them i'm never coming back in this thread.
Meteorologists have a hard time predicting the weather in the 3-5 day range. heck, even sometimes in the 1-3 day range....so how come every Climatologist is for CERTAIN with 100% accuracy that "solution A" is going to happen in year "X" no matter what. How can you be so certain that weather patterns some 20-50 years from now are going to cause such an apocalyptic outcome; when you can't even tell me what the overnight low is going to be on Tuesday.
ps, October of 2009 was the 3rd coldest on record for the CONUS. :o |
you're not comparing the same things. weather can't be predicted like the effects of pumping hundreds of billions of tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere every year or what happens to the methane trapped under the permafrost once it's melted away or measuring the the volume of the ice caps to determine the amount of sea level rise once they are completely melted into the oceans.
the weather is the result of dozens of constantly fluctuating variables. just because your weatherman said it's going to be cloudy tomorrow and it ends up being sunny, it doesn't mean he's for brains. maybe the pressure system changed since his daily broadcast aired and the cloud covering went north or dissipated or sped up and passed overnight while you slept. if you've ever been in a high altitude region for a while, you'd know the weather can go from perfect to in 5 minutes without a warning.
climate change on the other hand is the result of several steadily increasing variables and one fluctuating variable known as the sun. the sun gets hotter and cooler in phases, but regardless of it's warming, cooling and flare activity, the atmosphere is constantly being pumped with billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, which as a matter of fact is a green house gas. just because you have a cool year doesn't mean the co2 isn't there or doing anything.
whether or not you're skeptical of the science and the scientists, it would be foolish to err on the side of the status quo. if someone tells you about a dangerous situation ahead and you're not sure whether you can trust them, why would you automatically assume they are full of ? that's just plain stupid. especially with the stakes at hand. maybe you don't give a about coastal cities or biodiversity, but how about this... mosquitos and disease-bearing insects thrive in warmer climates. as the world warms their natural habitat expands allowing for disease hotbeds to broaden and connect larger regions. today you don't have to worry about malaria, but by the time you're retired it may be in your backyard where your grandkids play.
but let's suppose climate change is bogus. then what? what's the harm done in acting on it anyway? less pollution? more efficiency? better infrastructure? more advanced technology? better lifestyle habits? cleaner water? healthier people? more pristine natural habitats? how terrifying!
the issue doesn't even stop at climate change. burning coal, which is the main source of power in china and america, releases heavy metals like lead, mercury, nickel, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, aluminum, etc into the air and water. these metals are known neurotoxins. they cause cancer, birth defects and degenerative disease and every coal plant dumps them in the water and air supply. it's time to stop that regardless of what you think about global warming. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
I don't really give a about global warming one way or the other. I don't need that as an excuse to not be a wasteful, polluting . Except for smoking, of course. But I'm trying to quit. :o |
| quote: | But a conservative will surely also want to be sure that he conserves this inheritance, for its own sake and also for his future use. He will want to husband the natural world, not rape it and throw it away. He will see the abandonment of all values to that of immediate gratification as a form of insanity, if not evil.
And he will want to ensure that his children will enjoy the world as he has.
These are deeply conservative instincts, humble in the face of nature, conscious of the need to preserve for the future, aware of the limits of exploitation. These conservatives aren't utopian tree-huggers. They do not worship Gaia or see no give and take with the natural world. They believe in the harvest but also in the need for fallow years and for care and husbandry of animals and plants and environments. And they love their home for its specificity and its beauty, and do not want to see its stability and future gambled away on the casino of greed.
And yet nothing is more alien to what now passes for American conservatism than this respect and care for nature. Which is why it isn't really conservative in any meaningful sense at all. |
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...he-climate.html
*whistles and waits for the17sss to implode* |
|
|
| ToF |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
whether or not you're skeptical of the science and the scientists, it would be foolish to err on the side of the status quo. if someone tells you about a dangerous situation ahead and you're not sure whether you can trust them, why would you automatically assume they are full of ? that's just plain stupid. especially with the stakes at hand. maybe you don't give a about coastal cities or biodiversity, but how about this... mosquitos and disease-bearing insects thrive in warmer climates. as the world warms their natural habitat expands allowing for disease hotbeds to broaden and connect larger regions. today you don't have to worry about malaria, but by the time you're retired it may be in your backyard where your grandkids play.
but let's suppose climate change is bogus. then what? what's the harm done in acting on it anyway? less pollution? more efficiency? better infrastructure? more advanced technology? better lifestyle habits? cleaner water? healthier people? more pristine natural habitats? how terrifying!
the issue doesn't even stop at climate change. burning coal, which is the main source of power in china and america, releases heavy metals like lead, mercury, nickel, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, aluminum, etc into the air and water. these metals are known neurotoxins. they cause cancer, birth defects and degenerative disease and every coal plant dumps them in the water and air supply. it's time to stop that regardless of what you think about global warming. |
Why would it be considered foolish to dismiss a random who warns you of a dangerous situation if you stack it up against the facts and simple logic and it doesn't make sense? If the dangerous situation doesn't add up, how can you take that more seriously than someone who tells you there is a flying teapot orbiting the planet (yes I borrowed that from some atheist or Dawkins)? Do we simply believe everything we are told without critique? :conf:
OK so lets suppose HUMAN CAUSED climate change is bogus, you ask what is the harm in acting on it anyway. I suppose there wouldn't be any harm in having a healthier and cleaner society but that's the problem. The world leaders don't seem to be really interested in this. They may talk of clean energies and so fourth but really the main agenda you keep hearing about is how urgently we must implement an emissions trading scheme. So let me ask you a question then. Why should people have to pay extra taxes for using vehicles, electricity, gas or any other form of energy that produces emissions when at this stage we don't even know if these emissions are in fact affecting climate change? Why should everyone, including developing nations have to pay a tax for something that is not known as a negative effect yet?
Regarding coal burning and neurotoxins, that is definitely an interesting point you raise which I did not know. But having said that, I don't see how this is related to human caused global warming at all. It seems all these extra unrelated points keep getting lumped into the whole climate change argument because the argument for human caused climate change is too weak to support itself on its own facts. It has to resort to the, "What if we don't act now?", "But it also provides A, B, and C benefits, so why not?".
IMHO, what we should really be focusing on and investing in is how to deal with the natural climate change which is always happening. Our governments should be looking into how we can protect our cities from the effects of future climate change and stop ing around with a rebadged environmental tax which they claim will stop ALL global warming. You'd be foolish to believe humans have any power in stopping natural climate change. It happens and we as a species must adapt to it instead of implementing worldwide tax systems. |
|
|
| idoru |
 |
|
|
| Arbiter |
I can't tell you whether we're causing global warming; I certainly hope we are, and the evidence is somewhat persuasive, but ultimately it's observation, not "projection," that forms the basis of proper scientific inquiry. We'll get our answer soon enough...
What I can tell you is this: if we are causing global warming, it is far, far too late to avert it or even reduce it substantially unless we promptly discover a cheaper source of alternative energy. Most likely, that will not be the case until fossil fuels are so scarce that being "cheaper" is not much of an accomplishment.
I can also tell you that the funny thing about fossil fuels is that they really are "fossil" fuels: all that nasty carbon we're putting into the atmosphere had to come from the atmosphere in the first place; and, moreover, it had to have been there at a time when life thrived on our planet--the plant life whose remains formed the fossil fuels we now burn, at the very least. Claims of an "apocalyptic" outcome are, accordingly, quite implausible (although I suppose that depends on what you consider "apocalyptic.")
Personally, I am in favor of a warmer planet. To be sure, there will be disadvantages, but in the long run (read: long like that graph in the original post) I believe that they will be outweighed by the advantages. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
edit: the question was "Do you believe man-made causes contribute to global warming?" |
|
|
| saluyamo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Personally, I am in favor of a warmer planet. To be sure, there will be disadvantages, but in the long run (read: long like that graph in the original post) I believe that they will be outweighed by the advantages. |
Just dont tell that to the people living in the Maldives |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
|
I noticed you say "moreover" a lot. |
|
|
|
|
