Global warming, yes or no?

Global warming: yes, that's the current trend. Just about every measure we have indicates that

Caused by humans: almost certainly, to some degree. No scientist can say with any certainty what percent of the global warming is caused by humans, but we can do controlled experiments on CO2 in the atmosphere, and it does have a greenhouse effect.

Net effect of global warming--positive or negative: indeterminate. No one can accurately predict whether warmer temperatures would be a net benefit or a net detriment for society--there are certainly costs and certainly benefits, but predictions about how much of each we'll see are wild speculation--and of course, no one can predict human adaptability. We may find that we benefit greatly from a slightly warmer planet.

Detriments of market interventions compared to detriments of global warming: indeterminate. Creating market inefficiencies is usually a negative; since we can't determine whether global warming is a negative or a positive, we can't determine whether it would be more beneficial to let it happen, or to intervene. Quite possibly, we'll be sacrificing economic prosperity to ward off a benefit to humanity.

Hysteria surrounding the issue: yes.

in answer to the OP:I'm not sure, scientist's seem to think it's caused by man, they may be wrong - but we had better not risk it...

Please tell me how anybody is going to benefit from the loss of our icecaps. Thats the stupidest thing I've read so far. Why don't you go down to New Orleans and tell them that their destroyed homes are actually a benefit for mankind. As for sacrificing economic prosperity there is nothing that says you can't make money using clean energy, any company that can make clean renewable energy in mass is going to make some serious money. But the oil companies obviously don't want that to happen so that are putting money and serious effort to stop it from happening.

Unfortunately, this thread illustrates the collective cooling of the American intellect.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe (survey meaningless), unusual and excessive global warming is an established scientific fact, and there is almost universal consensus among the world's scientists that human activity is primarily responsible.

There are few facts in the history of scientific inquiry that are so settled--the fact of evolution and of gravitational forces would also appear on the short list.

There is, however, a vigorous debate about how much, exactly, humans are contributing to the warming, just as there is still debate on precisely how evolution happens. Let's not confuse facts and theories, folks. In fact, if you haven't, read Gould's essay on fact and theory that he wrote in the early 1980s.

It certainly applies to the issue of global warming.

LawSchoolBound wrote:

Please tell me how anybody is going to benefit from the loss of our icecaps. Thats the stupidest thing I've read so far. Why don't you go down to New Orleans and tell them that their destroyed homes are actually a benefit for mankind. As for sacrificing economic prosperity there is nothing that says you can't make money using clean energy, any company that can make clean renewable energy in mass is going to make some serious money. But the oil companies obviously don't want that to happen so that are putting money and serious effort to stop it from happening.

This is typical of the fuzzy headed thinking that goes along with "global warming" advocates.

Can you explain the link between the disaster in NO & global warming? Do you think that was the first hurricane that ever hurt people? Why don't you go to

and look at the data - there is no increase in the amount of cat 3,4,& 5 storms in recent years despite the fact that this is widely reported. Go back to the 40's and 50's and look at the data.

Yes, I can explain the connection. Instead of dying out over the gulf of mexico which is what hurricanes have done in the past so that when they hit the coast they aren't too bad Katrina picked up even more energy and force because the water was abnormally warm. Why did the dams break? Not because they were ill designed, they held back as much water as they were designed to hold but when they were built nobody thought that a hurricane that bad would ever hit.

Ya, same thing happened in Galveston in 1900 or whatever. It was the darn global warming back then too!!!

Come on, give me a break. The whole Katrina-hurricane-Global warming link is a bunch of media hysteria BS designed to scare people into believing.

yes of course

HPer wrote:

I also believe the earth is fat .. just look at a map!

Ha Ha. I think Morgan Spurlock made a documentary about that one. His movie mostly concerned itself with The USA though.

Solely responsible - No.

Responsible to an extent that makes a significant difference - Absolutely.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this conjecture. Once again, the data needs to be examined before making this kind of statement.

It is undeniable that Katrina was caused by the hot ocean temperature and that the temperature was above average. Also, there is nothing that says that global warming will cause more storms, in some places in the world the number of storms will probably decrease. But the average strength of those storms is growing. Also, if this is all B.S. then what about the millions of dollars that big oil has admitted to paying to scientists in exchange for their silence? Why are they trying so hard to create this confusion?

Ok, you need to stick to torts and traffic tickets because you're talking out of your ass.

Instead of parroting hysterical nonsense from Time and Newsweek, why don't you look at the data yourself?

The world is flat. That's a fact. The landing on the moon was staged. There is no evidence that smoking is bad for your health. Furthermore, Paul is dead.

I've got my undergrad in civil and environmental engineering and I know very well what I'm talking about. I also know that the U.S.A. is one of the few countries in which global warming is even debated as the rest of the world accepts it as fact. As for looking up the facts, believe me I have, and on many, many occasions. You can't deny that C02 emissions have greatly increased and it is also a scientific fact that C02 traps heat in the atmosphere. I still don't understand how you can argue against this. It amazes me at our own countries ignorance. Seriously, ten years from now when the polar ice caps are pretty much gone you'll still be denying it and still refusing to look at the facts.

http://www.everybodysweather.com/Static_Media/Polar_Ice_Cap_Melter/index.htm

Sorry, messed that up but check it out anyway

moneymakershaker wrote:

The answer is "no" and if they cannot predict the temperature next week, next month, next year - then the forecasts for a decade or more out are absolutely worthless.

Hahaha, nobody is making weather forecasts for the next decade. They're making climate forecasts. Very, very different.

Again, why do non-climate scientists think they know more than a consensus among scientists? Not saying there aren't a couple of scientists still holding out (and if you look far back enough into their research funding, you usually end up with oil companies, and I'm definitely not an anti-oil environmentalist at all), but there is definitely a consensus.

I mean there really isn't too much to debate if you look at the facts. Unbiased that is, not from any denial sites and not from any climate action sites.

Did I ask you about the ice caps?

My op referred specifically to your comments about hurricanes. Instead of relying on a site like "everybody's weather" why don't you go to the source:

www.noaa.gov?

People who fashion themselves as "climate activists" often engage in hysterical avalanche thinking. The polar caps are melting! Every bad thing happening on earth is related to global warming! We're all going to die!

The current concern about global climate change is predicated on a false notion that such a thing as stable equilibrium exists for the earth's climate. It never has and never will be in equilibrium. Extended periods of metastability are punctuated by global weather events, for example an ice age.

Is the climate changing? Yes, but it always has been. We cannot effectively enumerate and quantify the various things that influence the climate, so nobody really knows what is going to happen. My concern about the hysteria surrounding global climate change stems from the fact that it would be imprudent to commit our resources towards mitigating any one particular scenario before we have a better handle on the cliamte as a whole. I would favor funding a Manhattan project style enclave of scientists from every discipline (but mostly mathematicians and physicists to keep everyone honest) in order to study the problem intensively for a few years.

So instead of trying to put everyone into a binary classification, try to understand that there is a small but growing community of scientists who would like to see climate change studied without the hype.

Finally, don't believe everything you read in the paper. An example of a story that was totally blown out of proportion was the impending "death" of the honeybees and "colony collapse disorder". It was picked up by the media and blown way out of proportion. When the dust settled, the originator of the research came out and did some interviews in which he revealed that he had been wildly misquoted.

Many people (including a lot of climate change scientists) seized on this and predicted that agriculture as we know it would cease and came up with models of how global warming is killing the bees (& it will kill all of us). As it turns out, the bees are mostly fine and the colonies that are collapsing do not constitute a general trend.

So I don't challenge you about whether the ice caps are shrinking. I challenge you about what it means. And I think we can do a lot better than half baked hysterical thinking that suspends our judgement.

no