Is Global Warming happening?

[YmirGF]

Due to the massive eruptions of CO2 gas in this thread I would assume that global warming is a possibility we should not ignore. Perhaps it is time to say "bye bye" to the venerable internal combustion engine and our beloved fossil fuels. Hmmm... come to think of it that could kill two birds with one bullet... with Dick Cheney nowhere in sight either.

 

[spacemonkey]

Amazing...

Why is the carbon dioxide correlation not obvious to most people....

Even Pat Robertson said something to the effect that Al Gore is doing a good job in trying to educate the general public of the dangers and devastations of Co2 in our atmosphere...

Who cares about Pat Robertson or Al Gore?

Again, I ask you (or anyone for that matter) if we are causing global warming then who caused the ice age? Like someone stated much earlier in this thread, a single volcanic eruption causes the release of more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then we'll ever produce.

 

[FFH]

Who cares about Pat Robertson or Al Gore?

Again, I ask you (or anyone for that matter) if we are causing global warming then who caused the ice age? Like someone stated much earlier in this thread, a single volcanic eruption causes the release of more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then we'll ever produce.

There are natural fluctuations in temperature, however what we have done is sent Co2 into the atmosphere and it has eaten two large holes in the earths ozone layer, thus allowing unfiltered sunlight to pass directly onto the earth's surface, which also becomes trapped within the ozone layers that are still intact.

This is the way I view it....

I need to Google a map of where and how big the two ozone layer holes are...

 

[FFH]

Who cares about Pat Robertson or Al Gore? .

My point was that Pat never seems to praise any Democrat for that matter but seemed to praise Al Gore for his global warming education campaigne.

 

[BUDDY]

No, what is entirely unconstructive is to look at two sides of an argument, say 'I like this one because it means we can maintain the status quo and I don't have to do anything' and then stand about saying,'Prove we're doing anything.'
You know what, I've been slightly skeptical myself in the past, but I frankly think it's better to err on the side of caution and act as if we do make a difference, than stick my head up my arse in a blind refusal to accept that we might.
If your team is right and we act as if it isn't, the worst case scenario is that nothing changes despite our best efforts. If the other team is right and we act as if it isn't, we screw ourselves.
Gee, it is really hard to pick the sanest way to go when you think about it, isn't it?

Now, let me try to explain where I stand on environmental issues:
I believe that man has had and is having a detrimental effect in the cleanliness of our air.
I believe that man has had and is having a detrimental effect in the cleanliness of our water.
I believe that corporations should be held accountable for pollutants put into the air, water and ground.
I believe that we should stop deforestation of the Amazon.
I believe that we have a moral responsiblity to use our natural rescources in a more responsible manner.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MAN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. There simply is no conclusive evidence. You can not point to historic global patterns, compared to entire global history, and come to such a decisive conclusion. In fact, recent science has pointed to a warming trend every 1500 years.

You will probably ignore it, but I will point to some other sources:
"But Is It True?: A Citizens Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues" by Aaron Wildavsky
In this book, the author makes some very good points concerning global warming:
#1 Scientific theory plus emotion does not equal scientific fact.
#2 Scientific theory plus consensus does not equal scientific fact. The "Sky Is Falling" society will not like this book for obvious reasons (their own lack of objectivity being the biggest reason).

"Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death" by Ronald Bailey from Reason Magazine

More than anything though, I am truly disappointed in the assertion by you and others during this reasoned discussion, that those who have a different opinion of global warming than yours, are therefore ignorant and are not looking at the evidence, but choosing to ignore the problem in favor of the status quo. That is absolutely ridiculous and just shows the liberal attitude that suggests anyone that doesn't think as you, and follow lock step to the same conclusions, is stupid.

 

[BUDDY]

There are natural fluctuations in temperature, however what we have done is sent Co2 into the atmosphere and it has eaten two large holes in the earths ozone layer, thus allowing unfiltered sunlight to pass directly onto the earth's surface, which also becomes trapped within the ozone layers that are still intact.

This is the way I view it....

I need to Google a map of where and how big the two ozone layer holes are...

There was a depletion in the ozone layer discoverd near the south pole. No one knows how long it has been there. It was discovered just after the technology needed to discover it was created. Some theorize that it has been there for a very long time since the sheep in Patagonia have been blinded because of it for centuries.

 

[FFH]

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MAN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING.

So I guess the ozone layer holes and depletions should be attributed to natural causes too and that man has nothing to do with this steady rise in earth's mean temperature ???....

Sorry if I don't respond to your answer got to go to work...

 

[BUDDY]

So I guess the ozone layer holes and depletions should be attributed to natural causes too and that that has nothing to do with a steady rise in earth's mean temperature ???....

Dude, did you read my previous post. It's not about what you think to be true, it is about what you can PROVE!!! Even if the depleted areas of ozen contribute to an increase in the earth's median temperature, there is no proof that man caused the depletion in the first place. Try again.

 

[spacemonkey]

So I guess the ozone layer holes and depletions should be attributed to natural causes too which, probably in your opinion, has nothing to do with a steady rise in earth's mean temperature ???....

Sorry if I don't respond to your answer got to go to work...

If i remember correctly, the depletion of the Ozone layer and global warming are seperate issues. I seem to recall scientist attributing the depletion of ozone to the use of aerosol propellants known as CFC's (chloroflorocarbons if I'm not mistaken).

 

[Djamila]

"Is global warming happening?" is, more or less, a (North) American question to begin with.

When you have 99.9 per cent of the world's experts saying one thing, and 0.1 per cent of experts – more or less all from a single country, more or less all funded by that country's fossil fuel industries – saying another, I think it's safe to say the debate is finished.

 

[spacemonkey]

"Is global warming happening?" is, more or less, a (North) American question to begin with.

When you have 99.9 per cent of the world's experts saying one thing, and 0.1 per cent of experts – more or less all from a single country, more or less all funded by that country's fossil fuel industries – saying another, I think it's safe to say the debate is finished.

And where are you getting those percentages from? Do you have a source? Or is this another case of 86% of all statisics are made up off the cuff?

 

[Sunstone]

#2 Scientific theory plus consensus does not equal scientific fact.

Does the author of your book propose any better way to establish truth than "scienfific theory plus consensus"? If so, I'd like to hear it, because it would certainly be revolutionary.

 

[Djamila]

And where are you getting those percentages from? Do you have a source? Or is this another case of 86% of all statisics are made up off the cuff?

It's off the cuff - but I actually did see a fellow from BBC lecturing a CNN anchor on CNN Europe about that, chastisizing them for presenting "scientists" on Texaco's payroll with equal time and prestigue as the rest. He also said 99.9 vs 0.1 - hahaha.

 

[jacquie4000]

Just curious did anyone watch the news on this last night? And what might have been covered up by Bush....on Global Warming?

 

[spacemonkey]

Does the author of your book propose any better way to establish truth than "scienfific theory plus consensus"? If so, I'd like to hear it, because it would certainly be revolutionary.

First off he said scienific fact, not truth. And there is a way to establish scientific fact from theory, its known as the scientific method and hasn't been revolutionary for centuries.

 

[croak]

Okay. So, we can't establish truth? Goodie. My grey world just got greyer.

So, how is truth established? Wait... theories can be proven wrong. And even if there is a consensus, it can still be wrong. Well then, there's no point in debate because no one can prove anything. Wait... how did I get there? Just ignore this paragraph.

 

[BUDDY]

"Is global warming happening?" is, more or less, a (North) American question to begin with.

When you have 99.9 per cent of the world's experts saying one thing, and 0.1 per cent of experts – more or less all from a single country, more or less all funded by that country's fossil fuel industries – saying another, I think it's safe to say the debate is finished.

I would like to see support for your claim that scientists in ever other country but the United States, supports the idea that global warming is man caused. I would also like to see support for your argument that American scientists do not believe that the earth has been trending warmer in recent years.

Why is no one listening??????

Most everyone in the scientific community will admit that if you look at the data since 1800, the earth has been getting progrssively warmer. The argument is not whether the earth is getting warmer, it is whether or not the species homo sapien has anything to do with it.

 

[BUDDY]

And where are you getting those percentages from? Do you have a source? Or is this another case of 86% of all statisics are made up off the cuff?

You're not suppose to ask questions like that. Don't you know that when your motivations are viewed in the mainstream as honorable, just and good, that it really doesn't matter where you get your information?

 

[BUDDY]

Does the author of your book propose any better way to establish truth than "scienfific theory plus consensus"? If so, I'd like to hear it, because it would certainly be revolutionary.

Yeah. You gather observable, empirical, and MEASURABLE evidence, that is SUBJECT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF REASONING. In the world of the "man attributed" global warming theory, there is not enough historical measurable data to conclude that man has such an effect. So consensus among scientists is substituted. This is not accepted or even practiced and you will not find it in the Scientific Method.

 

[BUDDY]

Read it again Buddy, that's not what I said.

"No, what is entirely unconstructive is to look at two sides of an argument, say 'I like this one because it means we can maintain the status quo and I don't have to do anything' and then stand about saying,'Prove we're doing anything.'
You know what, I've been slightly skeptical myself in the past, but I frankly think it's better to err on the side of caution and act as if we do make a difference, than stick my head up my arse in a blind refusal to accept that we might."

Okay, I obviously read it wrong and am completely unfamiliar with the English language, because I could have sworn that, by following the processes of subject and writing structure, you just said that to take the alternate view was indeed to stick your head up ones own arse, since that would be similar to ignoring facts and sticking to the status quo. But I must be wrong.

But feel free to represent my opinion as you see fit, because apparently being a moderator I'm not entitled to one anyway, nor even still entitled to post in the manner I have done the entire time I've been here.

I have no problem with you personally, but I think that you owe it to yourself and tot he members of this forum to be more judicious in language you choose to use.

Now, if you actually have an issue with me as a moderator, then feel free to make a complaint and the Smods can take it from there...this is not the place to air that sort of thing. Frankly you have no idea what I do or do not do as a moderator or where I stand on any moderation issues, but if you want to bleat 'favouritism' in order to discount my opinion then by all means do so.

No, you're right. This isn't the place to be discussing this.