ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

by Seeker4 68 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AuldSoul

  SixOfNine: You don't see any scientist conflating these two things ...

  Disrespect and disdain are the only tools in your arsenal, eh, sport?

  In point of fact, I have seen MANY taped interviews where scientists conflate the two things and read many interviews conducted by reporters where scientists conflate these two things. It isn't poppycock.

  I wonder if Seeker4, who is in the media industry, also feels that there has been no incident of scientists conflating these two. He didn't seem to think I was making that up.

  Oh, wait! That sort of discussion is well beyond what you demonstrate any desire for ... how to dumb it down ... ah, yes! I think you're a poopy-head!
• 

  Arthur

  There is something that disturbs me about this debate. It seems to me that there is this strange belief that humans can control the earth's climate and temperature fluctuations.

  Don't get me wrong. I do not deny that climate change is happening. Also, I am all in favor of alternative energy sources. Simple commen sense will tell anyone that burning coal and oil is not good for the planet.

  What bothers me is that many enviromentalists seem to believe that global cycles are unnatural. Many of them seem to neglect to factor in the solar cycles which affect temperature. When I was doing research into the scientific liklihood of a global flood (per book of Genesis) I was amazed when learning how the geological record has revealed several significant temperature fluctuations throughout the last billion or so years. This has caused ocean levels to rise and fall several times over. In this context, the information revealed how such evidence had been misread by people who insisted that the global flood was real. But, what the information also revealed was how our planet has gone through such radical (and even violent) cycles even in our absense. The rise and fall of ocean levels was never a problem because there were no cities or beach houses to be flooded. Another question that doesn't seem to be addressed enough is: how was it possible to have such relatively high global temperatures when there were no humans emitting green house gases?

  Again, I am not saying that people should just throw up their hands and not take any action. I think that basic common sense dictates that burning fossil fuels isn't good for us. No think tanks need to tell us this. What I am saying is that I believe there is a certain level of denial in the enviromentalist community. I think that many of them believe that humans can prevent such warming cycles from happening if everyone would behave properly. Well, it will surely make a difference. But, humans are never going to be able to manipulate or cajole the planet into submission.
• 

  dilaceratus

  Auld Soul: "I have yet to see any article or product from scientists that does not combine these two into one thing..."

  Complete nonsense, even to yourself, as you have now changed your statement to "MANY."

  Auld Soul: "Even establishing a correlation between human activity and climate change does not scientifically establish a cause and effect relationship.

  "That is the piece that is missing and consensus opinion cannot be a substitute for it."

  The reason so many Fundamentalists and other simple-minded conservatives have difficulty with the subject of human activity causing Global Warming (let alone the fact of evolution) is the same reason they are Fundamentalists and simple-minded conservatives: a total lack of understanding of statistics and probability, which are one of the primary tools of the modern sciences. Their understanding of the universe and its systems comes from a pre-17th century worldview which is generated entirely from either Experience ("my azaleas have wilted due to a late frost, therefore the earth could not possibly be warming") or Abstraction ("this is liberal hysteria").

  When thousands of trained scientists agree that it is more than 90% certain that the current global warming trends are the result of human activity, those with some sense of numeracy find this compelling. Those whose minds can grasp only their own transitory Senses or unprovable Absolute Truths ("God is love") have difficulty understanding such "Science 101" terms as "scientifically" and "likeliest".
• 

  SixofNine

  Disrespect and disdain are the only tools in your arsenal, eh, sport?

  I pull no punches about the fact that I find your thought process and manner of debate on this forum misleading, arrogant and self-centered in the extreme. Cf your thread about evolution vs creationism; thank Dog climate scientist are not waiting till they have their own equivalent of a cracked tooth to try to honestly make sense of things. edited to add (see above by dilaceratus re: experience)

  Your questions you so un-earnestly grapple with regarding CO2/temp change and "chicken-or-the-egg" scenarios, are questions that scientist have been earnestly grappling with for decades.

  I know why one chicken won't cross the road to do a little research: it's because it's so much more gratifying to the ego to believe that you've hit on questions that real researchers with Phd's aren't smart enough or dedicated to hard truth enough to ask themselves (when in fact those questions are either "asked and answered" or being vigorously, yea even honestly, debated).
• 

  uninformed

  As I am reading this, I can see very respectful and intelligent people coming to different conclusions.

  I have always respected Auld Soul, as well as seeker 4. Both of you seem to be able to deal very well with highly scientific and technical discussions.

  Not to be funny or trite, though, I have a question:

  If global warming is a "given", and it really is taking place, just EXACTLY how much has the average temperature of the earth increased?

  In Crichton's book, if memory serves me correctly, the charts and graphs that I saw indicate a rise in temperature of about .08 degrees Celsius.

  Also, is it fair to pinpoint a 10 or 20 year period of earths geologic history and really draw solid conclusions? I am 60, and I do remember in high school in the 1960's being taught that global cooling was imminent and that another ice age was on the way. This comment is anecdotal and not to be considered evidence, but I do remember it.

  One thing that I would respectfully share with Seeker 4 is that in one of his posts, he quoted the New York Times. My political views tend to come from the conservative end of the spectrum, and I would have little, if any, respect for the NY Times as an accurate reporter of Scientific fact. Please, Seeker 4, don't mischaracterize this comment as an attack on you. I like the way you are respectfully discussing the issue.

  There is another thread about global warming that is currently going on in this discussion group, and while it too has a wide range of opinions, there are a lot of scientific references being given that is food for thought.

  Auld Soul, I do appreciate your scholarly approach to such a wide array of discussions. Thank you always for your fine mind and extremely clear way of expressing yourself.

  Brant
• 

  Seeker4

  Dilaceratus wrote: "When thousands of trained scientists agree that it is more than 90% certain that the current global warming trends are the result of human activity, those with some sense of numeracy find this compelling. Those whose minds can grasp only their own transitory Senses or unprovable Absolute Truths ("God is love") have difficulty understanding such "Science 101" terms as "scientifically" and "likeliest"."

  Yes. I find this compelling.

  Arthur wrote: "What bothers me is that many enviromentalists seem to believe that global cycles are unnatural."

  I've NEVER gotten that impression. I think the scientists I've read consider the natural global cycles as, well, natural. They say that what is happening at this point is not a natural cycle. This is a chaotic reaction of the natural cycles triggered by a polluting overload of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The extremes of drought, storms, rain, etc., in various parts of the globe are the result of a system that was quite stable being altered by human activity.

  uninformed:

  As far as global climate change, it seems that the farther you go in north latitude, (and perhaps south as well) the greater the temperature change. From the interview I did with Tom Wessels, an envirionmentalist who wrote the book The Myth of Progress, he said that Alaska has seen a 4 degree (F - I think) average temperature warming. That is considerable.

  As a conservative, you may take issue with the NY Times, but overall, it's a pretty highly respected paper, to say the least. Actually, it was their science writer, in an interview on NPR (you probably have a few issues with them as well!!), who raised some questions about Gore's An Inconvenient Truth that I found informative. There are actually quite a few conservatives who are taking a stand that global climate change is a real issue that we need to address. The handful of holdouts are looking more and more like deniers rather than serious debaters of this issue.

  I really questioned whether this was just a political issue for some time, but over the past eight months or so, I've begun to swing my view to the side that this is a serious issue that we need to take action on. I guess at this point the big question is whether humans can actually do anything to stop what seems to be a process already in motion on a global scale.

  S4
• 

  ringo5

  Why is it when anything is attributed to human activity, it is unnatural?

  And yet when anything is attributed to any other animal or plant , it is natural?

  Are humans somehow unnatural?
• 

  greendawn

  It is those causing the pollution that do not want to concede it is a problem because this can undermine their wealth as they will have to pay out a lot of money to install and operate antipolution systems in their factories.
• 

  Bryan

  What we are seeing NOW, though, is a much more rapid change in weather patterns than ever before, and more weather extremes as the atmosphere becomes more chaotic.

  Seeker4,

  Can you supply some facts to back this statement?

  Bryan
• 

  Seeker4

  Ringo -

  Your point is well taken. I agree that we are part of nature. I guess where I might take exception is whether or not our ability to pump massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is a "natural" process.

  Has our intelligence and ability allowed us to disrupt what are essentially self-contained and generally healthy-for-all-life natural processes? For example: running water will cleanse itself through natural processes. Yet if we dump chemicals from a factory into that stream, we disrupt that process. We pollute and destroy the water's ability to sustain life. So, if we're a part of nature, which we are, is our polluting of that water just a "natural" occurence? Should that be our viewpoint? Or should we try to understand how that process works without our interference, and then use that natural system to keep the water clean?

  I believe that our intelligence has given us the ability to affect these highly developed natural cycles for better or for worse. It has also given us the ability to study and understand the process - and learn how to use it and cooperate with it.

  Consciousness is a bitch, ain't it?!

  S4