Global Warming = A JOKE!!

So when I answer your question that makes me a pompous prick? Obviously you are the most mature and reasonable person on the board. Maybe you're in a snit because you can't negate anything I've said. BTW, you still haven't answered my question as to why you think people are better off on a cold planet than a warm one. Lower the temperature 2C and we're in another Ice Age. Raise it 6C and the planet would be the same temp as when primates evolved. We're at the low end of the range, why do you think that's better?

Regarding the conservation, I have no problem with the voluntary efforts you listed. My wife and I own small cars, because we hate wasting money on gas. We recycle. Our home is well insulated because we hate freezing our a**es off in the winter. I work from home, my wife walks to work in decent weather. However, 90% of Americans don't have access to public transport. Such a scheme is impractical in this country because most of it is empty space. So if you want to get around you HAVE to drive yourself.

If all you chicken littles' required was voluntary effort, there'd be no debate. But as I pointed out earlier, raising the cost of carbon based energy is the proposed solution. This raises the price of everything and hits the poor the hardest, not to mention it does nothing to address the "problem" you say exists.

It appears to me that the environmental elite hate poor people since every solution they come up with hurts them.

Now we're talking. Thanks, BRM--here's where the possibility of a better conversation lies. I agree that the difficulties are in the proposed solutions, and I see the way in which many people love the problem of global warming because it gives them a good excuse to set up the global governmental institutions that they've been advocating for a long time. It's a problem perfectly suited for the desire to centralize and globalize regimes of power.

I really prefer the older environmentalism, which was not focused on a global problem, but on local problems--where the problem of environmental conditions is mixed directly with problems of class, race, quality of life, etc.

I think the real challenge that the issue of global warming raises--and it's one we're dealing with in almost every facet of life--is how to balance the need to create global institutions that can address global problems without also giving up on the problem of empowering local institutions and individual people to also address their own problems.

It's the general problem of the 21st century--that's why everyone is so riled up about global warming. And that's also why people want to confuse the issue of local weather with the long-term global issue of climate change. Because BOTH problems exist-- problems that are local, immediate, and pressing (like the weather) as well as problems that are global and long-term (like the climate.)

The political question is how to address both of these types of problems--as well as we can. And it's an ongoing problem because in some cases global solutions will create local problems--and vice-verse. However, we ought to try as often as we can not to make it into a question of either/or.

What a strange little person you are, what makes you think I'm "in a snit"? Please show me where I've even tried to "refute" anything you've said (since you haven't said anything that might be worth refuting)? I said that (anthropocentrically) the correct temperature for the Earth would be the one which allows the human species to continue to survive, to which you said: "Historically man (and nearly all other forms of life) has done better when the climate was warm instead of cold." I asked you to back that up, so you said: "The current warming started roughly 250 to 300 years ago (before the industrial revolution began), ending the Little Ice Age. People have done pretty well over that time period."This is the post which contains several unsubstantiated assertions, since you've drawn attention to several historic events and correlated them with "warm" periods in history, without actually demonstrating cause and effect. You've also failed to demonstrate any meaningful definition of the term "done pretty well" - I'm not certain that the last 300 years have been an unqualified success for the human species, are you? If done pretty well means something specific, perhaps you'd quantify that for us? I then pointed out that this might be erroneous (which is not the same as a refutation) given a longer look at the history of humanity (and, given the history of life itself, the longer look allows us to see that perhaps a number on a scale is not as important as a temperate (in the sense of free from extremes) climate - something that a small rise in global temperature seems to be putting in doubt).

True, but there is a vast difference between having to drive yourself, and having to drive yourself in a Chelsea tractor. A Chevy Tahoe puts out 355 grams of CO2 per kilometre, while a Fiat 500 puts out 111g/km. If you have to drive yourself everywhere, why pick the car that does 15 miles to the gallon (this is especially true in light of your claims that increasing the cost of carbon-based fuels is a disproportionate burden on the poor)?

What a bizarre statement - am I a "Chicken Little"? I'd love you to show me where I've made any suggestion that global warming is true? My (repeated) view is that it may be true and it may not - even if it is unlikely to be true do you still want to gamble with your kids lives'? I don't know about you, but I've invested - monetarily and emotionally - a large chunk of my life caring for my kids - I wouldn't send them out to a playground if there was even a 10% chance they might be killed there, so if there is even a 10% chance that global warming is true, surely trying to prevent it is something else we can do for our kids?

I would love to see more efforts being made to decouple everyone from the grid - personal generation at point of use is the way forward - and I regularly write to my MP on the subject of proper government funding for solar panels and wind turbines. Get that done and you immediately relieve the poor from any of the effects of market fluctuations in fossil fuels - get people to drive smaller cars and when petrol prices go up it doesn't hit them so hard.

But perhaps proposals for raising the cost of carbon-based energy are gaining traction because people won't make the voluntary effort, and perhaps the reason that people won't make the voluntary effort is because certain people (naming no names) keep insisting that climate change is a hoax?

Now I think we are getting to the crux of the matter, but why - if what you disagree with are the larger initiatives for tackling global warming, rather than the premise of needing to live more responsibly - do you feel the need to deny the possible existence of man-made global warming? Can you not see the problem here? Your argument appears to be "I disagree with the policy of raising the cost of carbon-based fuels, so man-made global warming doesn't exist". Perhaps you might need to rethink your position?

You've failed to demonstrate that you know the meaning of the word 'correlate' and that you are trying to sound smart because you are "in a snit."

Peace and Ques wrote:

As I understand Global Warming, this is axactly what's predicted.

Warming = higher temps (generally) = more energy and moisture in the atmosphere = bigger stronger wetter storms.

Global warming = poles warming faster than equator = decrease mid-latitude temperature gradient = less potential energy = less storms/weaker storms.

Yes, man made global warming is real - the Virginia event was a weather event, not a climate event.

If there was a point in that last rant, I missed it. Try writing concisely and coherently and maybe you'll begin to make sense.

My issues with the global warming advocates is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They attribute all of the following to global warming:

higher average temperatures

bigger storms

greater extremes both on the hot and cold side

So in other words, they pretty much want to attribute every weather event to global warming. When areas are affected by extreme cold and excessive snow, it's attributed to global warming. When the same area is milder than normal, it's also global warming.

They have defined the parameters so that they will be "right" in every situation. It is a can't lose proposition.

shut up wrote:

It's interesting how you note "that process plauges every academic pursuit and we don't unduly scrutinize them." This doesn't mean we shouldn't scrutinize them and check for corruption. On your thousands of scientists thing, it's never really been clear how many scientists agree on this. Beside that, it doesn't even have to be coordinated. I'm not talking worldwide conspiracy. I'm talking about groups only representing one side of the science, like you said, to ensure their political and lifetime goals are met. Climategate doesn't mean there is a worldwide conspiracy. It simply means there were people caught trying to further their agenda, whatever that may be, instead of objectively pursuing truth through science. This can happen on a large scale when such stigma is attached to the belief/nonbelief of certain theories, but it doesn't have to be collaborated between all those involved.

First, I never said we shouldn't scrutinize them at all. But to reject all of their work simply because a few of them might be corrupt? That'd be like rejecting an entire history book because a few of the dates were wrong.

Second, I said "that process plagues every academic pursuit" to force you to explain why you hold climatologists to very high standards and question their motives, yet you don't question the motives and constantly scrutinize other scientists?

Third, what makes you think the dissenting scientists aren't equally corrupt?

Fourth, why do you keep referring to "Climategate" like it was significant? What actually happened? After examining 13,000 e-mails, fox news identified 3 private exchanges that were obviously taken out of context. Not exactly a big time scandal. One referred to a method scientists have used for a long time (but he used the word "trick" to describe the method, so fox news made it appear like they were hiding data). Another was a scientist expressing his disappointment over a journal that did not abide by the fields standards for peer review and published obviously flawed methodology, so it wanted to boycott the journal. And the last one said they don't have models to explain short-term climate change. I'm not saying there climatologists have never been corrupt, but come on, "climategate" was made-up.

I'm not going to argue about climategate. You can make of it what you want, but it was clear that there was fudged data involved, it has been shown many times which graphs were fudged up, and people are thinking of every possible excuse to dismiss what the scientists said. You can explain it away in almost every case, but it's clear that something was being changed, make of it what you want.

What makes you think I don't hold other scientists to similar standards? I do.

There may be some corrupt scientists on the other side, but at least the science is on their side, which you have refused to talk about, so the debate is really pointless.

You constantly question all the scientific findings of the experts? I find that hard to believe.

So one of the primary reasons you question the majority is because you think those scientists are corrupt and politically motivated, yet you readily admit the minority is equally corrupt and politically motivated. Why do you overlook the corruption and political motivations of the minority? Explain the inconsistency.

And stop acting like you've explained and proved the science of the minority is superior. All you've done is say something about computer models, oh wow. And how do you personally know the science is superior? You're not a scientist. You see, neither of us are scientists, so the most reasonable thing to do is to trust (albeit with due reservations and skepticism) the majority.

If 18 doctors said you need surgery and 2 doctors said you don't, who would you believe? For some reason, you trust the 2 doctors.

The question I've always wanted answered is: what IS the "correct" temperature of the "globe"? I have personally seen evidence of seabeds at 7000 feet above "sea level". I'm guessing there was a time the temperature was considerably above what it is now. How many sets of facts do you have to ignore to come to the conclusion that we silly humans are heating up the planet.

It is only extreme human vanity that tries to find a cause & effect of man's influence on the "environment".

Of course we need to use common sense conservation practices, but I have a feeling the whole "Global Warming/Man Made Climate Change" thing is not much more than a big money grab.

Question everything. I barely ever have blind faith in what I am told scientists believe. I am not a scientist yet, but I am working on it. Besides, we already went over this 3million fu**ing times. Look at some of my older posts for answers to your questions before posting again. Also, Coked Up Brit already answered how it is just as reasonable to be skeptical as opposed to believing the majority. I never claimed to have proven the science because you refuse to even talk about that. So don't refuse to even look at it and then tell me that I have not offered any science. That is the highest level of hypocrisy I have ever seen. Also, I did not say the minority is "equally corrupt" I just acknowledged that, in general, there are always going to be a few bad apples. I just think there are more demonstrated cases on the proponent side. Anyway, I talked about all this before but you just keep repeating the same questions. You don't have to be a scientist to look at what scientists do and make logical conclusions from their results. The results of experiments are all you can trust because so many scientists jump straight to interpreting their results and saying stuff that they think is right, but is not necessarily true just from looking at the results. Now, tell me what I just said, so I know you understood it.

You said:

(i) "I question everything scientists and experts say, not just global warming."

First, I find this very doubtful. Would you reject a doctors prognosis? What if roughly 8 out of 10 doctors came to the same conclusion? Second, remember, you're not just "questioning" the majority; you're rejecting the majority and accepting the minority.

(ii) "I haven't proven the science, but it is only because you 'refuse' to talk about the science."

When did I ever say I refuse to study the science? And why would becoming a scientist and studying the data lead me to a reach different conclusion than the majority of scientists?

(iii) "There are always some corrupt scientists, but I'm not quite prepared to say the minority is as corrupt as the majority."

First, would some corrupt scientists really make the theory wrong? I mean, if you were to discover that a few scientists fudged some data on evolution, would you suddenly declare evolution false? It doesn't make sense. Second, why do you assume the minority is free from political influence? What makes you guys you guys so special?

(iv) "I'm not a scientist, but I don't have to be a scientist to study the data, point out their mistakes, and conclude the majority of scientists were too liberal in drawing conclusions from the data."

Right, the worlds greatest scientists all made the same obvious mistakes and "shutup" of the letsrun messageboard, not even a scientist but somehow more brilliant than everyone else, discovered an error in their reasoning. Right.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

If there was a point in that last rant, I missed it. Try writing concisely and coherently and maybe you'll begin to make sense.

I guess I was right about you the first time; you are a pompous little prick.

Dr. Fujita wrote:

Global warming = poles warming faster than equator = decrease mid-latitude temperature gradient = less potential energy = less storms/weaker storms.

Yes, man made global warming is real - the Virginia event was a weather event, not a climate event.

"Less storms/weaker storms"...how is that possible? I thought Hurrican Katrina was a result of global warming. I thought the big Tsunami a few years back was caused by global warming. I thought these powerful winter storms were a result of global warming.

Which is it, weaker storms or more powerful storms? Either way all the alarmists told us Katrina was the start of super hurricanes we should expect to keep seeing. Where did they all go?

Maybe I am, I don't really care. But you haven't been able to make a logical argument about anything else, so you're probably wrong about this too.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Maybe I am, I don't really care. But you haven't been able to make a logical argument about anything else, so you're probably wrong about this too.

And yet you've been arguing with me for 11 pages - what does that say about you? Nothing complimentary, that's for sure!

I can't believe how long this thread has gone, especially since it was started by a troll. I've tried to ignore its existence on the front page, but now I just can't resist.

I guess if you all believe in something enough, if you want to deduce your reasoning to a couple shaky bits of evidence, you will do and say everything you can to support your point. After all, what is real to each of us is what we want to believe.

The essential question we have to ask about global warming is why does it piss so many people off and force dogmatic yahoos on both sides of the debate to fudge data? Some people in this post already have answered that question. Measures to global warming will alter our lives greatly, increasing the price of energy, inconveniencing our transportation habits, hurting the poor who can barely afford to live now, possibly allowing global governance to take over (unlikely conspiracy theory, because there are better methods of global governance than climate change legislation). Plus, it will require many of us to spend more tax dollars when most of us had no say in the matter.

On the other side of the debate, the global warming advocates say that doing nothing will lead to climate disaster, water shortage issues, and permanently altered ecosystems, etc.. It is necessary to implement carbon reduction measures if we care about the future of human civilizations.

In my mind, both sides of the debate are ignoring two major factors in the climate change debate: 1. The other effects of burning fossil fuels besides global warming 2. The need to limit individual behavior for the health of the community.

With regards to #1, think about the other ways coal and oil affect our lives. The burning of coal produces toxic piles of ash, drastically reduces air quality, poisons the lungs of the young and elderly, results in the destruction of landscapes, leads to horrible working conditions for miners, increases the mercury content of everything. Burning oil also reduces air quality, pollutes our urban area, gives power and money to crazy people (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, for example), may need to serious water issues in the American West with shale oil, makes us dependent on a finite source of energy. I think these reasons themselves are strong enough to find alternative energy sources.

With regards to #2, we all are part of societies and routinely restrict our behavior for the good of the group. It's called ethics. We can't just willy-nilly do anything we wish in the name of individual freedom. That's ridiculous. Sometimes we need to limit our behavior to conserve our natural resources because as humans, we depend on the natural resources for our well-being. I think it would be in the best interest of future societies to put aside our petty arguments about global warming and find sources of energy that are not finite and do not pollute nearly as much as fossil fuels.

Measures to global warming will alter our lives greatly, increasing the price of energy, inconveniencing our transportation habits, hurting the poor who can barely afford to live now, possibly allowing global governance to take over (unlikely conspiracy theory, because there are better methods of global governance than climate change legislation). Plus, it will require many of us to spend more tax dollars when most of us had no say in the matter.

I would agree with everything you've said, except this portion.

1) Certain of the proposed measures would cost a lot of money, but they aren't really the best methods of combating the problem.

2) None of the proposed solutions will cause you to alter your life greatly, anyone who tells you this is lying, plain and simple.

3) We all have a say in where our tax dollars are spent - it's called a ballot box.