Why don't Letsrunners believe in global warming?

Precisely because of the terminology you use -- "believe"

believe?????? wrote:

Precisely because of the terminology you use -- "believe"

What are you saying? You can't believe in something that is true? Believe is not an idelogical or mystical word at all.

There may be global warming and, in part, it may be man-made.

Do scientists know why and can they predict when there will be global warming and when there will be an ice age in the absence of man? The answer is no. Yes, perhaps, it has something to do with the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit which has a 100,000 year cycle. However, it is true that whenever there is land at one of the poles (i.e. Antarctica) there will be an ice age. When no land mass has been at one of the poles we have had a much warmer climate on Earth then at present. We are essentially in between ice ages at present. Global warming is nothing compared to what would happen if we had a new ice age. There have been times where 2/3 of the Earth was covered with ice.

There are reasons why we should reduce the burning of fossil fuels other than for reasons of global warming. They include that importing oil is expensive and this puts pressure on us to keep the supply of oil to our country. Wind and solar power cannot supply enough energy, and if, you think differently then please educate yourself. Curiously, those that damn the burning of fossil fuels are also often against nuclear energy and hydroelectric power (which is renewable). Please do not tell me that nuclear energy is too dangerous compared with coal burning or other fossil fuel burning. France, for example, produces more than 80% of its electrical power from nuclear power plants.

There are at least two things (claimed solutions) which are very damning to those that want the United States to do something about global warming. The first is cap and trade. Cap and trade does not produce a bit of energy. Cap and trade is a scam. Yes, of course, countries and people will cheat. If a country or any other entity is to reduce fossil fuel use, there is no need to give money for someone to trade energy. Cap and trade may make some people like a former vice-president even richer, but it will impoverish others and do nothing to stop global warming. The second is that as was shown at the latest meeting in Mexico is that the United States is supposed to give billions of dollars to other countries including a country that is a bigger polluter than the United States. In addition, many of these countries are not democratic and the money would wind up in dictators’ pockets.

In conclusion, yes, it is quite possible that man is contributing to global warming. However, the climate on Earth will change with or without the presence of man. And we do not know when even in the absence of man. Global cooling leading to an ice age will be far worse. By all means, we should reduce our use and dependence on fossil fuels without cap and trade and without giving billions of dollars to other countries in the world which will do no good. In fact, a good proportion of people believe that this is just a wealth redistribution plan, and I am inclined to agree from the evidence.

I only have 2 points to make.

1. I am ECSTATIC about global warming. If the globe hadn't warmed up, I would be sitting on a glacier right now and my a55 would be really cold.

2. If global warming could raise the level of the Great Lakes such that the sewer that is Cleveland Ohio would be underwater, I would consider that a benefit to mankind.

Most people who believe in global warming do not possess the scientific background needed to independently pass judgment on the evidence. Instead, they base their belief on social factors, such as the number of existing believers in global warming and the authority of prominent intellectuals who believe in it. Since this reasoning process in invalid, their belief is irrational.

Does it matter if we believe in AGW? Global warming is a good thing. A moderately warmer earth would be a much better place.

someone else wrote:

believe?????? wrote:

Precisely because of the terminology you use -- "believe"

What are you saying? You can't believe in something that is true? Believe is not an idelogical or mystical word at all.

That's just it. Many people (including scientists) are uncomfortable with global warming theory because there is a close connection between political beliefs and "stance" on global warming. There is also a disconnect between the computer models and data that does not sit well with many skeptics.

"Believers" get frustrated with this because thy think that the evidence is incontrovertible and obvious. They don't like to acknowledge that we have never solved a problem this complex and computationally difficult before (not even close). They also suffer from the fact that many warming proponents used natural warming cycles to their advantage in the past. Now that there is all of this 'global warming' on the ground in the northeast right now, people in the middle are likely to be skeptical because of past abuses.

This is a messy example of where science and public policy intersect and the truth is, people are going to push back until the truth is clearer. Proponents of AGW are asking for a radical lifestyle change and they don't really have the goods to make their case.

I know its tough for environmentalists to hear this but they are not representatives of science while all skeptics are Philistines. The truth is much more complicated and there is no one on Earth at the moment that can say with authority what is currently happening with the climate, let alone what will happen in 10 or 20 years.

Instead of trying to tackle global warming, could we start with a smaller goal of just getting the F*(@*^ING ICE OFF THE ROADS IN THE WINTERTIME????

What about the net marginal effect of anthropogenic warming? I.e. there are general trends - over the past 85mm years, the earth has been cooling, over the past 600k years, it has swung in a very wide but stable range, over the past 10k years it has been unnervingly stable - but weather in general on earth is much more unstable than other planets, due to atmosphere, temperature, varying climates etc.

So, what about the idea that human CO2 emissions contribute to this climate volatility? Anything? I tend to think there might be something to this.

If you look at the various timeframes, it is unrealistic to believe that weather on Earth will remain stable forever, or that we can keep it that way. In some ways its like balancing a shot put on the end of a javelin.

I haven't read any of the posts on this thread, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Letsrunners do believe in global warming. I used to read and respond to global warming threads, but realized that I was probably either responding to trolls, or the same vocal minority (possibly also trolls) who always show up on global warming threads and bad-mouth anything that's supported by Gore or Obama.

I think that there are a lot of other people like me who use the forum and just roll their eyes now when they see a mention of global warming in a thread title, and don't bother to click on it. The people who post on these threads are sort of like the Tea Party in America. They're extremely vocal, but they actually don't represent the views of the majority.

For what it's worth, I did my Masters in a climate-related discipline several years ago and can say that the case for humans influencing climate - both by changing the composition of the atmosphere, and by land-use changes - is almost as strong as the case for evolution. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain, but the case for humans influencing climate is very close.

used to be cool wrote:

For what it's worth, I did my Masters in a climate-related discipline several years ago and can say that the case for humans influencing climate - both by changing the composition of the atmosphere, and by land-use changes - is almost as strong as the case for evolution. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain, but the case for humans influencing climate is very close.

But what is this influence vs general change? The climate will tend to change somewhat regardless, non?

If we look at the Stern Report, and the projected 2deg change it projects, what portion of this change can be attributed to naturally occurring phenomena? I realize it is not that simple, but roughly.

There are a lot of rednecks on letsrun

Rational Economics wrote:

Most people who believe in global warming do not possess the scientific background needed to independently pass judgment on the evidence. Instead, they base their belief on social factors, such as the number of existing believers in global warming and the authority of prominent intellectuals who believe in it. Since this reasoning process in invalid, their belief is irrational.

You could say the same thing about those who dispute the validity of global warming. That's really the point of the article that started the thread. The public debate is largely being waged by non-experts with strongly held convictions. People tend to look at the evidence only deeply enough to find points that support their preconceived notion and these notions are largely the group-think of their affiliated groups.

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.

The question is what should we do about it and when? I don't think anyone has even started to think about this question. Certainly those for and against Kyoto have not. They were just interested in staking out turf.

Since no one is willing to even think about it, we should drop it as a reason to do anything. During the 2008 election it looked like this was going to happen as everyone seemed to focus on the idea of "lowering our dependence on foreign oil". If we can all support that idea, even if it is for different reasons, we should focus there and get to work.

The argument against AGW reminds me of the arguments that used to be made against cigarette smoking. 'Correlation is not causation', 'scientific opinion has not reached a consensus', blah blah blah. The reason is this: The folks leading the campaign to reject the idea of AGW are the same ones who led the campaign against tobacco regulation and they're doing it for the same reason: Money. 9 out of 10 times those scientists and others who are argue against AGW receive funding from the fossil fuel industry.

Here's a good portal if you're interested in learning who is fomenting dissent against AGW and why they are doing so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

The answer to the OP question is this: There is no country more hostile to intellectuals and scientific thought and more friendly to greed than the US. It is THE distinguishing mark of our culture.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Ask any plant.

I used to think that you were an OK guy - your politics weren't the same as mine, but so what, but I see you've jumped on the retard train with the rest of the Palin-lovers.

In answer to the statement above, no, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but neither is water, so why don't you take that plant and drop it in the deep end of your swimming pool? Let's see how well it does then.

blah blah blah

the earth is on a cycle, for an extended period of time it will be "overly" hot and then it will be "cold" it's not global warming and man is not imposing on the earth to make it hotter.

I love the way that, whenever there is a scientific consensus on something that a poster doesn't want to believe, they say "Many people (including scientists) think that these guys are wrong..."

They throw the "including scientists" in there to seem more legit when, in reality, there are always a few fringe experts who disagree with a consensus. It doesn't invalidate the consensus.

This reply is not directed at the person I "replied to..."