i9jfsvd5r wrote:
The way I see it, man made climate change is real. Even if you could prove it isn't real right now, things are obviously headed in that direction.
Huh?
i9jfsvd5r wrote:
The way I see it, man made climate change is real. Even if you could prove it isn't real right now, things are obviously headed in that direction.
Huh?
corporations are not people wrote:
kdlslslsdsl wrote:There are a lot of rednecks on letsrun
This might be the best response yet. In their never-ending pursuit to stereotype and berate anyone that doesn't agree to everything they say, Liberals align all of their hatreds into one single being, often times forgetting the context of the discussion. "Rednecks"? Are you serious? You really think there's a lot of actual Rednecks on Letsrun? Yeah, rednecks just love running. They're always talking about elite runners, international track and field meets, NCAA nationals, the next up-and-coming high school talents, etc.
So, come on, give it another shot. Say "SUV drivers".....or "religious fanatics".....or "Republicans".....or maybe a slightly different, less predictable angle like "People that don't work in Academia".....or "non-English majors".....or "People that simply hate Liberals and their constant bitching and moaning about everything even though they do just as much damage to the planet as the rest of us."
BEST
POST
EVER
Rene the Cart wrote:
[quote]someone else wrote: All they can disbelieve is that humans have caused it, and that is open to debate. We have far too little information one way or the other to determine if we're the cause.
Respectfully, not true. ALL of the data indicates that recent warming is anthropogenic.
Is there a chance that it is due to some undiscovered cause? Sure, some very small chance. That's true of everything and is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant. Once we get to a certain level of confidence we should be comfortable making decisions. We're at that level of confidence.
This doesn't mean the effects are worse than a carbon tax (most evidence says yes but that's closer to a normative question) or that a carbon tax is even feasible.
To the other poster above re. fringe scientists being correct:
I'm not even going to bother responding. If you don't believe that science has value there is no point arguing the science. And you don't. Cherry-pick if you want but it's a completely impracticable approach. Either the scientific method works or it doesn't. It doesn't work when you like the results but not work when you don't like the results.
Hey, 'data indicates' and 'data proves' are two different things. I was trying primarily to point out that the evangelical christian/coal lobby people are simply wrong re: the data only indicating global warming; it proves global warming decisively. Anthropogenesis is less proven, and merely indicated. I'll buy it, but it is possible given the nature of science that it'll be disproven, while the increasing temperature and its destabilizing impact on climate simply isn't going to be disproven. Anyway, I think we agree in terms of there being a sufficient amount of evidence for anthropogenesis to respond politically and seek to limit our impact.
another average american wrote:
someone else wrote:The only reason you think I don't know what evolution is is because I don't believe in it. Actually, I don't believe in it because the science does not support it. I bet a vast majority of "authorities" in the soviet union didn't believe in capitalism. It's all we teach in schools, and it's the only thing they will allow scientists to publish. No wonder there's a "consensus".
Your "offer" is very insulting, as I am perfectly aware how science works. You have no idea how well I know science, and yet you assume I know nothing simply because I don't believe what you believe, and this is the reason you are proposing your "offer". I know what evolution says. Beside, you probably don't even know what the creation story says, so why should I take you seriously? The only reason you make your offer is to insinuate that you are smart and I am stupid. I don't debate like this, and you shouldn't either.
Actually, you're wrong on every single account here. I think you don't know what evolution is because you used evolution terminology on the other thread very inappropriately, mistakes you wouldn't have made if you had actually studied the subject. I've had very rational discussions with creationists who know all about evolution. You are not one of them. Intelligent people can believe in creationism. You could be very intelligent. But that doesn't mean you know the theory of evolution.
"Evolution is the only thing they will allow scientists to publish?" Seriously? Who is "they?" There are loads of different scientific journals out there. Articles are peer-reviewed, and there are loads of controversial articles published all the time! If there were evidence that evolution weren't true and that evidence was discovered scientifically, geez, that would make the cover of Science and Nature (the two very, very best science journals). If I could find evidence that evolution isn't true, or instances where evolution weren't happening, and my methods were rigorous enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, I would be famous. And then rich. I would love to be the person who showed that evolution doesn't exist, or doesn't always exist, but I haven't been able to do that yet.
I'm aware that my offer can be construed as insulting, but that was not its intent, as I tried to say. But since it's clear you don't know about evolution (see above), I am very willing to help you understand what evolutionists think. If, at the end of that, you still think evolution is false, my sharing of evolutionary theory will only serve to bolster your anti-evolution arguments. We're both passionate about evolution (although we're on opposite sides, we are both very interested in it) and I can't imagine not wanting to get a better knowledge of it.
I'm very open to any offer you might make to share creationism with me. I was raised Christian and one of my parents used to believe in creationism, but I know that I do not know every bit about it and would welcome any offer you make to share that with me. Seriously. If you're interested I can create an anonymous email, you can do the same, and we can take this off the boards.
I accept your offer. If I learn something from it, then good, but I find it highly unlikely that I have missed some compelling evidence in all these years that would make evolution seem more plausible. However, if you want to do it, I would be willing to listen to your arguments. How do you make an anonymous e-mail?
another average american wrote:
someone else wrote:Your faulty computer models and circular reasoning is the only thing that helps you stay afloat with these completely unscientific ideas.
someone else wrote:
I call my ideas science because they are scientific while yours are not.
Did you just say that my logic was circular when the argument you use is "I call my ideas science because they are scientific?" What exactly are your ideas and how are they scientific?
someone else wrote:
There are so many falsities in the textbooks about evolution, it is unbelievable, such as humans having "gill slits". You call this science? That's not what I call science, and if that's all you have to support your theory, you should probably consider getting a new theory.
That is not all I have to support my theory. At all. You say you understand evolution, then you say that gill slits are the only support evolution has? Do you understand how I could think you're not very familiar with science?
First of all, I did not say gill slits was the only support evolution had. There are numerous other lies that are also being propagated. When I said "if that's all.." I meant lies, not that specific lie.
My logic is not circular because things that are scientific are obviously based on science. I'm just calling it what it is, and it is testable and observable. The stuff that belongs in science, I deem scientific, and the stuff that is outside of science, I rightfully leave out of it. Evolution, however, is an obviously flawed theory that has numerous elements that must be taken on faith for the theory to work. That is not science. My ideas are scientific because I only call them scientific when they are observable, measureable, testable.
Rene the Cart wrote:
Hey, 'data indicates' and 'data proves' are two different things. I was trying primarily to point out that the evangelical christian/coal lobby people are simply wrong re: the data only indicating global warming; it proves global warming decisively. Anthropogenesis is less proven, and merely indicated. I'll buy it, but it is possible given the nature of science that it'll be disproven, while the increasing temperature and its destabilizing impact on climate simply isn't going to be disproven. Anyway, I think we agree in terms of there being a sufficient amount of evidence for anthropogenesis to respond politically and seek to limit our impact.
97% of climate scientists agree that global climate change is manmade to some extent. 97%.
These are the people who have studied the science and history of climate thoroughly. They are the only ones who have can qualified assertions about climate change. Not meteorologists, not biologists, not politicians and not your average citizen with access to Google.
If 97% of neuroscientists and paleontologists came out in support of a finding regarding the development of the human brain, would you question it? I highly doubt it. The same thing applies here.
It is amazing how many different opinions on climate change SCIENCE exist, while at the same time there is consensus among the climate SCIENTISTS.
BTW, I didn't mean to respond to your post specifically, just to the general discussion of the thread. I agree with you.
That would depend on how high the levels of greenhouse gases get in the atmosphere. Probably your best bet would be to check out the IPCC prediction graphs. I know that skeptics don't trust them but they are really very complex and generated using many, many different inputs on super-computers, and they are the best tool we have for predicting the future.As far as comparing the global warming threat to the KT event or the Permian extinction, it's doubtful that global warming will have as dire of an effect, but maybe not impossible. The Permian extinction, which nearly wiped out all of the life on Earth was likely instigated by global warming caused by massive volcanism. I think that the leading theory is that the volcanism increased levels of CO2, which raised temperatures, which destabilized methane hydrates on the sea floor, further raising temperatures (around 6 degrees warmer at the Equator and higher than that at high latitudes). The increase in temperature (particularly around the Poles) decreased the temperature gradient in the oceans, which is needed to drive ocean circulation. Without circulation, oxygen was no longer being transported to the depths, and the oceans became anoxic, causing most sea life to die and SO2-producing bacteria to thrive. The SO2 that they produced en-masse would have destroyed much of the ozone layer, harming many plants and contributing to the land extinctions.This, again, is a very far out and unlikely scenario that is extremely unlikely to happen, and would take a long time to metastasize if it did. On the path that we're headed, it looks like Greenland and West Antarctica are likely to lose a lot of their ice mass, causing sea levels to rise by up to 7 and 4.5m respectively. This won't have a noticeable affect during our lifetimes and it would likely take several thousand years for all of it to melt away, likely giving us some time to adapt and move or update our cities. There is also likely to be an increase in desertification at mid-latitudes, causing more farmland to be lost than what will be gained back at high latitudes. One of the biggest threats from global warming are the water conflicts that may ensue in countries that see their water supply diminished by receding glaciers and a more arid climate such as Pakistan and India. Global warming is probably not going to be the cataclysm that some people make it out to be, but I think that taking actions now to curb our emissions will probably be less costly in the long run than doing nothing and passing the buck on to future generations.
Off the Grid wrote:
used to be cool wrote:That is more or less the million dollar question. I will say this though: We are currently in an interglacial period which, ...
Perhaps to frame possible outcomes in context:
How much impact is expected vs other historic changes such as the KT Event or Permian Volcanism? In terms of percent
Global warming is probably not going to be the cataclysm that some people make it out to be, but I think that taking actions now to curb our emissions will probably be less costly in the long run than doing nothing and passing the buck on to future generations. (quote)
That’s all very well - but why should we Americans make all the sacrifices?
China's coal consumption in 2010 was 3.2 billion metric tonnes per annum.
Racehorse wrote:
corporations are not people wrote:This might be the best response yet. In their never-ending pursuit to stereotype and berate anyone that doesn't agree to everything they say, Liberals align all of their hatreds into one single being, often times forgetting the context of the discussion. "Rednecks"? Are you serious? You really think there's a lot of actual Rednecks on Letsrun? Yeah, rednecks just love running. They're always talking about elite runners, international track and field meets, NCAA nationals, the next up-and-coming high school talents, etc.
So, come on, give it another shot. Say "SUV drivers".....or "religious fanatics".....or "Republicans".....or maybe a slightly different, less predictable angle like "People that don't work in Academia".....or "non-English majors".....or "People that simply hate Liberals and their constant bitching and moaning about everything even though they do just as much damage to the planet as the rest of us."
BEST
POST
EVER
Agreed. I laughed at that one too.
WTC wrote:
Global warming is probably not going to be the cataclysm that some people make it out to be, but I think that taking actions now to curb our emissions will probably be less costly in the long run than doing nothing and passing the buck on to future generations. (quote)
That’s all very well - but why should we Americans make all the sacrifices?
China's coal consumption in 2010 was 3.2 billion metric tonnes per annum.
Firstly, you assume that I'm American. You would be incorrect as I'm Canadian and live in a country that would likely benefit (at least in the short term) from global warming.
Secondly, where did I ever say that Americans should make all the sacrifice? I certainly do believe that, as a source of 25% of the World's emissions and a global superpower with great influence, that the U.S. has to be a leader in any kind of strategy for it to work. To borrow an old cliche: "With great power comes great responsibility..." The British left a great legacy in the wake of their time as a superpower. Will the U.S. be seen in the same light, I wonder?
I may have missed it in reading the entire thread through quickly, but did nobody else comment on the fact that the OP has monsters under his bed? This is most likely a Fraudian slip from the way I see the information war taking place over the global warming issue. If you are prone to fears, panic, and listen or watch much media, you will have the bejeezus scared out of you.
I only know to live my life sensibly, be aware of minimizing the energy I use and costs of purchase decisions I make which are common sense (mostly financial) decisions. Not a one among us can stop global warming whether it's real or not. Obviously, the debate will continue.
Oh, by the way, the US uses a butt load of our energy to make food for the rest of the world, so shut up about that one.
used to be cool wrote:
Firstly, you assume that I'm American. You would be incorrect as I'm Canadian and live in a country that would likely benefit (at least in the short term) from global warming...
You think that Canada would benefit?!? Where exactly do you think 300 million Americans are going to migrate to when it gets too warm down here.
So, unless you like singing The Star Spangled Banner, I'd say you've got more to lose than just about anyone.
I know Im not very smart, but when I hear the rate in which the Earths population is growing I get scared. I think of things like energy consumption, access to food, destruction of natural resources, pollution and I believe we are on a crash course. I, like many others just assume global temperatures are affected by man and I will contunue to think so unless I see scientific proof in the other direction. Trillions of tons of pollutants spewed into the atmosphere cant be good.
Not that it matters, but it seems to be important here. I vote mainly Republican and live south of M.D. line
guy123guy123 wrote:
ALL of the data indicates that recent warming is anthropogenic.
Great, point me to 1 piece of empirical evidence that shows the planet wouldn't have warmed over the last 100 years if it hadn't been for people. I've been asking this question for two years on this board and nobody has been able to show me any.
Much much warmer wrote:
used to be cool wrote:Firstly, you assume that I'm American. You would be incorrect as I'm Canadian and live in a country that would likely benefit (at least in the short term) from global warming...
You think that Canada would benefit?!? Where exactly do you think 300 million Americans are going to migrate to when it gets too warm down here.
So, unless you like singing The Star Spangled Banner, I'd say you've got more to lose than just about anyone.
Touche!
But take a look at where most Americans live right now. In the South and on the coast, where Winters are temperate. I think that, with or without global warming, Canada's still going to be too cold for most, plus there's the perception that Canada's a socialist country, which will scare away the Tea-partiers. I do worry about our freshwater though and what will happen when the U.S. runs out in many regions.
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
guy123guy123 wrote:ALL of the data indicates that recent warming is anthropogenic.
Great, point me to 1 piece of empirical evidence that shows the planet wouldn't have warmed over the last 100 years if it hadn't been for people. I've been asking this question for two years on this board and nobody has been able to show me any.
Please point me to this natural mechanism that would account for the warming, if it isn't greenhouse gases. Solar activity has been going up and down cyclically for at least the past half century, while temperatures have either leveled off or increased dramatically. They level off when solar radiation is down and increase dramatically when solar radiation is up. Obviously the Sun has an effect, but it can't account for global warming without also taking greenhouse gases into consideration.
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
Great, point me to 1 piece of empirical evidence that shows the planet wouldn't have warmed over the last 100 years if it hadn't been for people. I've been asking this question for two years on this board and nobody has been able to show me any.
"Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" either the technical summary of or full text of chapter 2, "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" is what you're looking for.
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
guy123guy123 wrote:ALL of the data indicates that recent warming is anthropogenic.
Great, point me to 1 piece of empirical evidence that shows the planet wouldn't have warmed over the last 100 years if it hadn't been for people. I've been asking this question for two years on this board and nobody has been able to show me any.
That's all you want? Fantastic.
"The dominant factor in the radiative forcing of climate in the industrial era is the increasing concentration of various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Several of the major greenhouse gases occur naturally but increases in their atmospheric concentrations over the last 250 years are due largely to human activities. Other greenhouse gases are entirely the result of human activities.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1.html"
Let me head off your pedantry: ALL of the evidence indicates that the warming we are experiencing is significantly above natural levels and forced by man (i.e. anthropogenic global warming).
Are you saying that because the earth warms and cools without human intervention that we can't possibly impact those cycle? So you accept the science in the first half of the preceding sentence but reject it in the second half even those it's the same people relying on the same data? That's insane.