ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING???

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 11, 2009 at 8:11pm

Which jury is still out?

Certainly not the overwhelming majority of the worlds best climate scientist plus all the premier science institutes used by governments to check scientific claims when it concerns matters of vital national importance. Oh I forgot even the governments themselves have seen the writing on the wall as far as AGW, even the troglodyte Bush knew this.

Yes there are other environmental problems but when you comprehend the impacts of AGW you start to realise the game is up in many ways that will overwhelm everything else. From the hundreds of millions that will come under extreme waters stress and droughts to the hundreds of millions of climate refugees from sea level rise and other climatic effects, to extreme wildfires and the increase in disease ranges, the impacts will be immense. & that is if we can limit it to a two degrees increase more than that and you can kiss goodbye to the world as we know it. An increase of 5-10 degrees is in the range of past world mass extinctions of most all life on Earth.

Lets not forget about animal and plant extinctions on a planet where humans make migration very hard and they don’t have the timescales available to adapt like in past natural climate shifts.

I’ve no doubt there is much politics , but it isn’t about the science, its about trying to appear to do something while actually doing the least amount possible, so they don’t have to tell their constituents things that they don’t want to hear. Namely they have to radically change their lifestyles, or that ethically they should put their hands in their pockets and pay the developing world for making most of the mess -and enjoying the fruits– in the first place.

& concerning the environment in general we just don't have Climate Change, but you have Peak oil and Peak Resource -Club of Rome– on the horizon as well.

Permalink Reply by Jared Lardo on July 11, 2009 at 1:40pm

For pro-warming content, here's greenman3610: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

I'm agnostic, myself, about "global warming". I've found that the weather over the course of my life has gotten shittier, even after controlling for having been in Pennsylvania for three years, but that's not enough to prove it from my experiences. If I'm exposed to shitloads of data collected by people all over the world, I'll trust it, 'cause even with a conspiracy of mad proportions, it's not humanly possible to get such insane craploads of false data from actual people or to falsify it afterwards. What I have been exposed to is, on one side, heavy, heavy, heavy pushing that this "global warming" badass motherfucker that's gonna fuck up the planet real bad, bitch, is real and a threat, and, on the other, is heavy pushing that it's all a bunch of bullshit. Neither side has truly convinced me. Currently, my feeling is that the "Yes, it's warming" side has at least put on a good puppet show--right or wrong, and that the "Fuck you, you're drunk and imagining things" side has put on a shitty dog show full of hamsters.

In actions, I side with the warmists, 'cause what they promote as "solutions to the problem" are good with or without a problem: greater efficiency and so forth.

Permalink Reply by Kristjan Wager on July 14, 2009 at 4:32am

Sydni, a theory in science is supported by all evidence, and has been tested and found true over time. You're using theory in the general meaning, not the scientific meaning (where the word you're looking for would be hypothesis).

Permalink Reply by Chris Crenshaw on July 11, 2009 at 4:02pm

All good points thank you btw Sydni the video was great.
I have to say i expected alot more anger in these replys.
But dont get me wrong im happy there isn't lol

Permalink Reply by Sera on July 13, 2009 at 3:00am

Have a careful inspection of this pic ...

Permalink Reply by Sera on July 13, 2009 at 10:53pm

The data for C02 ppm has been recorded by hundreds of people in hundreds of locations with planes and whether balloons, from ice cores, in coral, and even from growth rings in old trees. The data in the graph is widely accepted in scientific circles as accurate and alarming. You would have to see the papers yourself for sources. Try Google with the words "co2 levels"

Permalink Reply by Chris Crenshaw on July 14, 2009 at 1:45am

Oh but did you know that ice it takes 800 years for the increase of the CO2 to cause an affect like the ice age and the like.
Granted its much higher now then its ever been.
Just watch the video i linked you
then when you have time watch the made easy vids. they have nothing to do with gobal warming more with physics and bio chemisty. Origins of life/the universe
anyway im off track.

Permalink Reply by Kristjan Wager on July 14, 2009 at 2:00am

The problem is that for AGW to be wrong, would mean that everything we understand about physics would be wrong as well. A lot of people fail to understand this, but AGW follows pretty straight-forward from what we know about physics.

I'd suggest reading sites like RealClimate.org for the science behind our understanding of AGW, rather than watching YouTube videos. Over at RealClimate.org, the scientists involved in the research goes at great length to explain the science, and address common misunderstandings and even outright lies.

Much like the evolution "debate", there is no real scientific debate on the subject of AGW. The debate is entirely among politicians and the public. See e.g. the IPCC synthesis report ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf ), which is a summary of the current scientific knowledge on the subject, for a better understanding of this.

Permalink Reply by Steven Nunn on July 17, 2009 at 12:43am

Who to believe? Scientist divided? Evidence uncertain? Other pressing problems?
How about some new (leading) questions:
When did an awareness of trouble first appear (time line)?
Who spoke up at this point?
Who supported them?
When did the opposition first appear?
Who spoke up at this point?
Who supported them?
What do the respective parties or their supporters have at stake?