Why Some of Us Will Never Agree

[David88vert]

This is still one of the warmest winters ever... it snows one weekend and its 65 or 70 degrees the next, doesn't that seem odd to you all?

Not at all - if you've lived in GA as long as I have. GA's winters have always been like this - warm one weekend, cold the next. It's not uncommon.

In my parents time, they weren't talking about global warming, they were talking about the impending ice age.

Here is a thought - do you really think that humans are powerful enough to effect such a massive change as a complete warming of the Earth? Look at the data, and it is not clear that humans are causing it. What if the Earth is naturally going through a warming that we are not the cause of? Then we are trying to fight something that probably is bigger than us. That does not mean that we should not try to do something about protecting our environment, but we shouldn't assume that it is something that we can easily change or reverse.

[Total_Blender]

Not at all - if you've lived in GA as long as I have. GA's winters have always been like this - warm one weekend, cold the next. It's not uncommon..

Its not winter in GA until it snows in March.

But climate and weather are different... weather is what is happening next weekend, and climate is the trend that happens over the next decade. A cold spell and a storm in DC does little to offset the long-term warming trend, and is even in congruence with the scientists claims that we will have storms that are greater in intensity.

What peer reviewed studies are you reading that show that global warming is not in fact caused by humans? Everything I have read suggests to the contrary.

[AnthonyF]

Not at all - if you've lived in GA as long as I have. GA's winters have always been like this - warm one weekend, cold the next. It's not uncommon.

I agree. I have lived here my whole life and the weather in GA is always in a constant change. That's why I love GA. It is always brings new surprises. But for true Georgians, weather is pretty predictable. We can walk outside and feel if it is going to rain today or late at night or predict any other weather change without the meteorologist. Only exception is snow, that one just comes whenever the hell it wants.

Its not winter in GA until it snows in March. .

lol troof.

-Ant.

[David88vert]

Its not winter in GA until it snows in March.

But climate and weather are different... weather is what is happening next weekend, and climate is the trend that happens over the next decade. A cold spell and a storm in DC does little to offset the long-term warming trend, and is even in congruence with the scientists claims that we will have storms that are greater in intensity.

What peer reviewed studies are you reading that show that global warming is not in fact caused by humans? Everything I have read suggests to the contrary.

There are a lot of scientists that do not believe the current administration's position. Here is an article on it:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
You do realize that they are still studying climate change. They do not have all of the facts yet, but it does not mean that we cannot take action early. I'm for environmental protection and emissions control - within reason. I am not for panic-induced legislative reactions personally.

Your favority news agency had some news on global warming just last month, of course, you will not want to consider it because it must be politically biased (even though you believe the media is not biased):
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...chopped-facts/


CBS did a report a little while back that you should remember:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06...y5117890.shtml

But for the sake of a discussion, let's consider that CO2 emissions from humans are the complete source of global warming. Even if all CO2 emissions were stopped today, NOAA reports that it would take 1000 years to revert to earlier levels:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0127163403.htm
So, exactly what actions would you suggest we do? Give world power to Al Gore?

[Total_Blender]

There are a lot of scientists that do not believe the current administration's position. Here is an article on it:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

Happer is not a climate scientist, his fields are optics, spectroscopy, and radiation. As I understand it, most of the scientists on that list are not climate scientists... they work in other disciplines.

If anything the fact that it would take 1,000 years for the Earth to revert to it earlier level of Co2 should give us pause and be an indicator that we should work to decrease our output of Co2. Whether it is manmade or not, if its not going anywhere we probably shouldn't push our luck by adding to what occurs naturally. From your article:

Geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. “Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative,” said Solomon.

So some sort of engineering feat to remove the carbon may be a recourse in the future, if it really gets that bad. I suppose once we have nanotechnology and such such a thing might be more plausible.

The Fox article I will disregard because they only present the conservative side of the story. They didn't speak to the scientists behind the IPCC study, or anyone at the IPCC. The fact that the numbers came from a study not related to climate change does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, or that they are somehow not relevant to the topics presented in the study.

"up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" -- highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that "it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems ... such as tropical savannas."

Fox didn't say this was wrong, they just said that it came from a study unrelated to global warming. However, the sharing of data between disciplines is one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method. Data complied on how forests react to drops in precipitation would be equally useful for studies on the impact of climate change and on the impact of forest fires.

[David88vert]

Happer is not a climate scientist, his fields are optics, spectroscopy, and radiation. As I understand it, most of the scientists on that list are not climate scientists... they work in other disciplines.

If anything the fact that it would take 1,000 years for the Earth to revert to it earlier level of Co2 should give us pause and be an indicator that we should work to decrease our output of Co2. Whether it is manmade or not, if its not going anywhere we probably shouldn't push our luck by adding to what occurs naturally. From your article:



So some sort of engineering feat to remove the carbon may be a recourse in the future, if it really gets that bad. I suppose once we have nanotechnology and such such a thing might be more plausible.

The Fox article I will disregard because they only present the conservative side of the story. They didn't speak to the scientists behind the IPCC study, or anyone at the IPCC. The fact that the numbers came from a study not related to climate change does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, or that they are somehow not relevant to the topics presented in the study.



Fox didn't say this was wrong, they just said that it came from a study unrelated to global warming. However, the sharing of data between disciplines is one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method. Data complied on how forests react to drops in precipitation would be equally useful for studies on the impact of climate change and on the impact of forest fires.

"Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change."
"Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research."


There is no current technology to change the current climate - according to NOAA. You are speculating only.


The only reason that you disregard Fox is because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. It's report is valid.
"In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.
But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist."
"If it is true that IPCC has indeed faked numbers regarding the Amazon, or used unsubstantiated facts, then it is the third nail in the IPCC coffin in less than three months," Andrew Wheeler, former staff director for the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, told FoxNews.com. "For years, we have been told that the IPCC peer review process is the gold standard in scientific review. It now appears it is more of a fool's gold process."
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, was quoted in the European press as saying, "I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren't mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution."

You are right, Fox did not say it was wrong - the IPCC itself did.

You are blinded to the truth, if you truly believe your typings. It's funny how you refuse to recognize data that is contrary to your beliefs, yet it is ok to use data not related to your topic to support your beliefs.