A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[Dfskelleton]

I don't nessecarily think global warming is false. I just don't think that it's our fault. We've got a giant burning ball of gas in space not too far (as far a space goes) from us and we're saying it's our fault? Sure, pollution is obviously bad, and I agree that we could be a bit more careful, but I think we all play a smaller part in it all then everyone says we do.

 

[nonl33t m4st3r]

I have a couple of reasons why I'm skeptical about the whole "Global Climate Change" thing:

1)Using the same data before, scientists concluded that the Earth was in danger of freezing in the 70's. Having done a complete 180 on the result in the 90's, then to simply "Climate Change" in the more recent time makes it seem like they're not looking at the data right or something. We were wrong in the past, what's to say we can't be wrong now?

2)Some of the top climatologists have an almost obsessive adherence to the theory and are extremely quick to denounce anyone who says anything to the contrary as a right-wing loony/working for the big corporations/ etc. That strikes me as unscientific. Isn't the role of science in search of the truth, no matter how improbable? To be skeptical, to be in search of another possible answer, to be open to different interpretations is inherent to science. Stephen Hawking once said, in his book "A Brief History of Time", is that any good theory is testable and falsifiable, and there's always a chance of humans screwing up enmasse.

3)When temperature did not rise as much as expected these past few years, some top proponents of Global Climate Change stated that something was masking the change, and they'll run out in a few years, and there will a marked increase that goes in line with their previous theory. That seems to me that they're just covering their asses, and not accepting new data, or not looking at the problem from a new angle. They seem like they've come up with a conclusion, and are looking for evidence to support it, rather than the scientific method of looking at the data, and changing your theory if you're wrong.

4)For the past few decades, many climatologists say that we have only a few more years to act before we destroy the Earth. As far as I know, we're still alive.

When you look from my viewpoint at the climatologists' track record, it seems unwise to me to build any sort of major policy around it until they get their act together.

 

[Bantarific]

@ Dfskelleton

Please look at my very recent posts only 4 up from yours!

"The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change."

 

[Twilight_guy]

I'm in the camp that we don't know but trying to avoid killing the environment is a good thing anyways. Unless your spending excessive money to cut down carbon emissions or something how is it a bad thing?

 

[cantgetaname]

A couple tings: YES the climate is changing, YES it happens naturally, YES people are helping it happen faster, A LOT.
I have done RESEARCH on this, my sources are from all over the place, NASA, a whole bunch of .edu sites (school sites that would have NO REASON to make money or ANYTHING like that, just experiments run by STUDENTS)and a whole bunch of other places too. I even know some REAL SCIENTISTS that were skeptical of the "climate change" thing, and then turned their view around when they started doing their own research as well. Pre-industrial revolution CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.27% (I think around there, maybe 0.29...) NOW it's 0.39% those seem like small numbers yes, but you have to realize ALL LIFE ON EARTH EVOLVED LIKING THAT 0.27% add an extra ~50% to that, and I can tell you that's bad news, imagine adding another 50% oxygen to the atmosphere, we'd all DIE. And that 50% increase in CO2 was just for what countries industrialized THEN, guess what CHINA and INDIA are doing right now? You know, those places that account for almost HALF OF THE WORLDS POPULATION? Ya they are industrializing. So if America is ~4% of the world pop... and we emit 25% of the WORLDS CO2.. China and India are 50% of the worlds population... some basic math tells you that's bad, VERY bad.

Also, the scariest part about rising CO2 emissions, is the acidity of the oceans. I think it's at like 7.3 (and NO I'm not going to get into what the numbers mean, just go google it if you want to know) It used to be at 7.2, and if it gets to 7.5, that means that there will no longer be any shelled organisms in the ocean, like crab, lobster all that. That ALSO means no more coral reefs. Now, if you don't think that's bad, you got some serious reading to do.
EDIT: Bigger numbers = more acidity.

And for those of you that think that Humans DON'T contibute to climate change, I mean seriously, more basic math here, just LOOK at how much crap we pump into the atmosphere. And you think that doesn't do anything?

Oh also, I have NO idea where this climate change is taking us, for I haven't done my research that far, but either it's
A) going to burn us all to death or
B) cause an Ice age. So for everyone saying "It's a natural cycle of the Earth" yes, yes it is. SO SHOULDN'T WE FIND A WAY TO STOP THAT SO WE DON'T FREEZE TO DEATH?! Because I can GUARANTEE you, that you WILL NOT like an ice age.

One last thing: (I don't know if it already has been said BUT)

There have been 6 major extinctions wherein the majority of the Earth's life died that we humans know of. All of them happened before we were here and all of them happened due to massive climate change. The ice age was the most recent.

Humans do not affect the climate.​

The Earth will cool and warm long, long after we go extinct and the cycle of life and death will be unaffected.

The hippies are wrong. The science is right.

Of course! Because No one's EVER offered any SCIENTIFIC evidence of Global Warming!
I suppose you think that hole in the ozone layer just willed itself into existence.

Your a little miss-informed, The hole in the Ozone layer IS NOT effected by CO2 emissions, that was the whole Choral Floral Carbons thing, which was dealt with in the 90's I believe. It doesn't have anything to do with the current issue of climate change. Not trying to sound mean or anything, just informing.

And feel free to correct me on anything I missed or failed at.

 

[Timotheus]

I don't nessecarily think global warming is false. I just don't think that it's our fault. We've got a giant burning ball of gas in space not too far (as far a space goes) from us and we're saying it's our fault?

Normally the earth has a nearly constant average temperature, because it receives as much radiation from the sun as it sends back to space in form of infrared. But our atmosphere has greenhouse gases that sends apart of the infrared back to the surface, therefore the temperature rises until the point the earth sends out enough radiation again to balance the sun. This is good, because otherwise Earth would be too cold for life.
But since we put a lot of fossil carbon into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is stronger. The temperature rises until the point when there is balance again. But this balance is on a higher level and the difference of temperature is anthropologic global warming.
(based on my understanding of the topic).

 

[Double A]

Global warming is ridiculous, but pollution? That's something I can believe in. Pollution needs to be reduced exponentially if we want to keep other species alive. I know that a bunch of people say solar power and wind can be used as alternatives to oil, so governments should start trying them. If they don't work, move on to the next most feasible solution. Saudi Arabia could definitely get in on solar power with their giant desert, so they should actually be pro-solar.

 

[Bantarific]

@ nonl33tm4st3r

Thank you for actually making a coherent point.

Anyways,
1) Just because humans were wrong 40 years ago makes them wrong now? Science is not 100% but I find it much, much better to agree with the smartest minds our world has, in this case 97% of people whose jobs it is to study this. Certaintly we could argue it, just as almost any point can be argued, but is it truly that unbelievable to think that Humans have put out MASSIVE amounts of Co2 and that at the same time they started doing that the tempature started to rise much much much quicker than ever before.

2) I would disagree with skeptics for the same reason they do, study upon study upon study upon study has shown climate change to be real. Studies they performed no less. So yes, people can make mistakes, but at a point you have to stop denying the facts proven over and over again. Some people believe the earth is flat too but I guess all those photos from space and physics could be wrong, just a trick of the light.

3) Estimation is not an exact science, the very definition I believe. Many variables can change, the introduction of electric cars, some countries acknowledging climate change and cutting down on their output of green house gases. It is hard to estimate the exact change in tempature but if you notice most sites talking about the future use words such as "estimation" or "if it continues at this rate."

4) The earth is still around right now but not for long, simply look at how oil is running out, WATER will soon be in short supply and here we are using CONSUMABLE resources saying there is no way it will run out.

Scientists do have their act together quite well I would say and considering basically every climatologist thinks humans are the cause of rapid climate change I would say there is something behind it.

 

[Bantarific]

@ Double A

CLIMATE CHANGE is not ridiculous as many studies have shown if you would please look at the many links I posted not 10 posts ago.

 

[Jatal Khyron]

Even when the scientists that initially put forth the theories that Global Warming exists were not only proven wrong,

Really? When? Oh, just forget it, I will believe you. Somebody who writes that much of truth and proof without actually explaining anything about the physical process of global warming and what kind of discoveries were made that proved the scientists wrong, has to be right and is the kind of authority to trust, when it comes to the general courses of events in the whole scientific community. Also I completely agree that scientists are the kind of guys who would insist on a wrong thesis just because they fear to lose credibility (it's not like scientists got this credibility in the first time, because they are most selfcritical).

Well, if you could get off your sarcastic soapbox for a minute, I will explain.

As I stated before, you COULD just look it up yourself. However, since you can only seem to insult me for my opinion instead of presenting a measured and respectful counterpoint, I will point you in the right direction:


http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/01/24/global-warming-hysteria-ipcc-caught-in-false-claim-of-warming-caused-increase-in-weather-damage/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

And here are some clips of the hearings from the fallout of the scandal:

http://www.climategate.com/tag/phil-jones

Do a little research, then form your own opinion. Just don't insult my intelligence by denigrating mine, you just bolster my argument.

 

[sinterklaas]

I believe that the Earth is going through a climate change, but I don't think me bringing my own bag to the store to not use a plastic one is going to change a damn thing. I'm all for being environmentally conscious, but not on the terms of preventing global warming. The Earth will do what it wants, nothing we do can change that.

Also, it's the middle of April and I just got hit with the biggest blizzard of the year. I'm a bit skeptical that the planet is dangerously heating up at all.

You are completely correct, one person not bringing their own bags doesn't change anything, but how about 1 billion people bringing their own bags?

Change starts with yourself.

Also, it's the middle of April right now and the temperature in the Netherlands is more than TEN! degrees higher than normal. And not just for one day, but for weeks has the temperature been way higher than normal.

 

[dslatch]

The big things that gets me about eco friendly shit is:
1: Ethanol fuel costs more energy to make then normal fuels and takes up a good portion of crop land that we need for FOOD.
2: Hydrogen fuels cost a fuck-load to isolate the eco friendly way, so the way 90% of hydrogen is isolated is through a very (ironic and)smog inducing method.
3: *MOST* of you eco friendly pricks are the ones with their heads up asses and won't listen to somebody with countering beliefs and just organize us neatly in with right wing shut-ins that can deny is it's raining while their ceiling is leaking right on their heads.

At least the creator of this thread is willing to listen.

As an after thought i would throw this part in, i believe in climate change i just don't believe we are the ones at the helm this ol' blue ball will do what does best: Kill off what pisses it off.

 

[Renogod]

its the sun, honestly,it has more of direct effect on temperature, then we do, and volcano's release several times more carbon immissions in the air, and cause more changes in temperature and weather, than lets say, our c02 immissions. and to be honest global warming wouldn't necessarily be all that bad, some areas would get warmer, that haven't before, and some more hotter than they should be, and they said at one point that global cooling was occurring 50 years ago, so yeah, forgive me for being skeptical. Also, the sun doesn't have any or very little sun spots check that out, it started occurring and hasn't for a couple of years i believe it is shown with correlating with temperature, anyways here's link. We also go through phases of temperature, so i believe its not all man made, if anything its just a natural phase of the earth's and sun's cycle. Now I'm not saying don't keep the environment clean, I'm just saying the causation isn't necessarily, man-made.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

 

[Bantarific]

@ Jatal Kyhron

For firstthings.com Find a different website please, considering they are a major religious website with the article titled "Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?"

For the climategate is was shown that all those emails were hacked into and then taken out of context for anti-climate change propaganda

"Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[20] The Guardian's analysis of the emails found that the hacker had filtered them using keywords, including "Yamal", "tree rings", and "Phil Jones", so that these terms appear in many of the documents.[6] The controversy has thus focused on a small number of emails.[20] Skeptic websites picked out particular phrases, including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated, "The fact is that we can?t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can?t".[5] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[21] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics."

 

[Heronblade]

A part of the problem with the whole debate is that actual factual data is stupidly hard to find.

Here are the primary facts that are verifiable and are difficult if not impossible to effectively argue:

-We are in a period of gradual temperature change

-A portion of that change is natural, part of the Earth's normal warming and cooling phases

-odds are high that another portion is artificial

-determining for certain how much of the change is artificial is currently impossible

-portions of the ice caps are melting

-other portions of the same caps are growing

Frankly, its a bit difficult to determine what the hell the environment is doing at any particular point in time. Meteorology as a science has barely gotten out of the magic 8 ball phase.

 

[Bantarific]

@ Renogod please inform yourself about volcanos and humans impact on climate change, as I have posted many times before humans are responsible for much or all of climate change today as is said in dozens of reports by climatologists whose job it is do this kind of work.

Please refer to this FAQ of climate change
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

 

[Bantarific]

@ Heronblade it is very very easy to find most facts about climate change, simply refer to NASA. I generally find they are a good source unless anyone here works for NASA and would care to say they are corrupt and all their reports are falsified in the name of profits, which appears to be the general there is no such thing as climate change argument.

As it says the same amount of tempature rise that should take many hundreds of years has occured in less than 1 century.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/

 

[bdcjacko]

*waves* Geologist here.

Humans -> CO2 -> stunts ozone -> renews plant life -> promotes ozone growth -> less plant life
-> more CO2 -> stunts ozone -> renews plant life -> promotes ozone growth -> less plant life -> more CO2 -> etc.....

All we do is change the pace. And not very much on a global scale...
Earth takes care of everything. It's been that way for a few billion years.

(Feel free to replace "plant life" with "any oxygen producing organism.")

So you are saying we need to kill more plants to achieve global warming? I'm on board.