Your View: Global Warming

1. Csimmons - April 12th, 2008 at 9:20 am

Finally, I’ve been waiting for this, My answer is that global warming is natural, but we as humans are definitely speed up the process of it. i mean, look at the 30’s, the Earth was heating up a LOT. But ten later years or so later, the Earth began to cool down.

2. John - April 12th, 2008 at 9:26 am

-Gets popcorn, water, and Al Gore- This could get interesting….

3. jadester - April 12th, 2008 at 9:37 am

Greenhouse gases are natural, and they keep heat on the planet. Humans have been releasing more of these gases by burning fossil fuels and by deforestation. If there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is logical to assume that the earth will retain more heat and global warming will occur.
Its really too bad that it can’t be looked at in a simple way like this because of what jfraater said, people make money off of it and therefore its the subject of controversy.

4. JT - April 12th, 2008 at 9:38 am

Global Warming is an inane issue. What’s more important is the serious overpopulation, energy and natural resource problems which no sems to talk about.

Whether or not it is true, we have to seriously reconsider our relationship with the natural world and treat it with much more respect.

5. Jen - April 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am

I just want to go on record here and now and say that, regardless of whether or not global warming is a true phenomena happening at a dangerous pace, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was one of the worse, most sensationalist pieces of crap I’ve ever had the misfortune of watching. It was so poorly done, from a scientific standpoint, that it would turn any logical viewer with a background in the sciences off of caring about global warming.

6. Jen - April 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am

*worst

7. jon - April 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am

i just don’t know anymore. i remember people saying that global warming was so bad that we are going to start to experiance longer summers and shorter winters,………well i live in chicago and the news was talking about seeing some snow next week,now we are in april and i’m still seeing snowflakes around my area. it seems to me that winter will just not go away. so like i said before i just don’t know anymore. but i can say that i’m looking foward to seeing everyones view’s,comments,and response’s.

8. jadester - April 12th, 2008 at 9:46 am

JT- Why do you think its inane?
I agree with the rest of what you said, espescially about overpopulation - its scary.

9. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 9:48 am

JT: actually - I find the overpopulation thing interesting - the UN predicts that by 2050, the third world will have increased in population from 5 to 7 billion people - there is a LOT of land mass there - and great potential to feed them through good farming etc. (which is hindered often by corrupt governments). The UN also says that by 2050 the rest of the world population will remain unchanged. It seems to me that people who are worried about overpopulation are worried about an increase in births in mostly black nations - for most westerners this will have no effect on them. Why are we concerned about the growth in population in nations that have the natural resources to cope (presuming their governments sort things out)?

10. Jen - April 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am

jon: I go to school here in Chicago, and I’m actually taking a class sort of on global warming right now. On Thursday, when it was so rainy and gross out, our professor tried to bill it as global warming happening (essentially) the same way it did in “The Day After Tomorrow”, and then told us we could help matters by becoming vegetarians and shunning all beef products. :rolls eyes:

11. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am

oh - from what I just said, forgetting the third world for a moment - the rest of the world has a stagnant population - no growth or loss at all.

12. Jen - April 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am

And for what it’s worth, the growth rate of the population (of the world, not specific nations) has, more or less, plateaued in the last 5 years.

13. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am

jon: Chinas has just had the coldest winter on record since many many years ago. The UK seems to be in winter still (it is hailing right now) - last year this time we had a barbecue and got sunburnt. There is no doubt that there has not been a global increase in temperature in the last ten years - but the pro warming people tell us that we can’t just look at ten years - so why not? What if the next ten years are colder as well? How is it that we can predict the world’s temperature for the next 100 years but we can’t predict whether it will be sunny or wet next weekend? It sounds like psychohistory to me (refer to the Foundation Novels for the definition of psychohistory)

Jen: exactly! It is a great opportunity for greenies to force us to follow their lifestyle choice - but what if that is ALL it is?

14. Dan - April 12th, 2008 at 9:55 am

i agree with Csimmons that it is a natural process(the earth has been getting gradually warmer since the end of the ice age some 11,000 years ago) but humans are releasing more greenhouse gases than the earth is prone to.

15. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am

For more on overpopulation check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.....0s_to_2050

“The population of 51 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan and most of the successor States of the former Soviet Union, is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005.”

“Birth rates are now falling in many developing countries, while the actual populations in many developed countries would fall without immigration.”

“In 2000-2005, fertility at the world level stood at 2.65 children per woman, about half the level it had in 1950-1955 (5 children per woman). In the medium variant, global fertility is projected to decline further to 2.05 children per woman.”

That seems to suggest a loss in growth - not an increase.

16. JT - April 12th, 2008 at 10:16 am

While birth rate is falling for indigenous people in the developed world, the immigration rate is skyrocketing. Plus the link you posted suggests that the world population will reach well over 8 billion by 2050 (though the Living Planet Report calcualted 9.2 billion), which I predict will lead to a disaster of malthusian proportions. In fact, a study by the WWF and the Global Footprint Network suggests that we will require two planets to satisfy our needs by then. The signs are already around us - diminishing wildlife, disappearing forests, resource shortages, climate disasters - we are heading for a REAL disaster I predict.

As for Africa, that problem could be solved by using GM crops, which countries are reluctant to do, and distributing contraception with vigour. The President of South Africe doesn’t believe in AIDS and 25% of his peope, are infected with it. The Pope endorsing contraception in Africa would also be a good constribution.

17. jadester - April 12th, 2008 at 10:20 am

Does anyone who does not feel global warming is a real thing, believe that the excessive release of gases into the atmosphere is ok?
I mean, fine, if you don’t think global warming is probable, but does it make it okay that these gases in the atmosphere are increasing? Something will happen if we just move forward in the same way, haphazardly, and not try to focus at least some of our energy on repairing our mistakes.
It really makes me tired to hear people say “Oh its cold out today, wheres global warming now?” Hop in their suv and crank the heat.
And regarding overpopulation: just because the earth’s population is not increasing AS FAST, does not mean that it is not increasing. Where are we going to put all of these people, and what will they eat? Or should we just not care since they are in third world countries and our countries have stagnant populations? (is this what you mean jfrater?)
I don’t want to be arguementitive but people are so quick to dimiss environmental problems and it is a very real problem. I understand why too: no one wants to be told what to do, and environmentalists going around yelling at people and being radical just makes regular folk want to do the harmful things more, or at the very least stop listening and do what they want.

18. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 10:20 am

JT: re GM crops - do we really want to replace our natural crops with copyrighted crops? Have you heard about the farmer suicides in India relating to Monsanto and GM crops?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....s_in_India

Additionally, contraception has not done anything to cause a reduction in birthrate. And, while your wish for the Pope to endorse contraception would certainly help to spread its use, the Pope is unable to do so as it is a defined Catholic dogma that contraception is a mortal sin - therefore no Pope can ever endorse or even allow its use.

19. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 10:22 am

Oh - here is a citation for “contraception doesn’t reduce pregnancy”:

http://www.lifenews.com/int604.html

20. Chaz - April 12th, 2008 at 10:22 am

Most definitely in my mind this issue is largely driven by ideology first. While I won’t argue against the fact that humans contribute to CO2 production, I see little evidence for the drastic calamities espoused by the faithful. What I do see, and am increasingly frustrated by is a tendency by the global warming faithful to use science politically. Consensus does not a theory make, and as an unscientific observer I see plenty of evidence that contradicts those who say the planet is warming.

With that I’m contemplating heading up to Mt. Hood where there has been plenty of fresh snow in the last week adding to already record snow fall levels. Spring skiing? Bah - we’re still enjoying old man winter in April.

21. Miss Destiny - April 12th, 2008 at 10:24 am

Ooh, interesting topic! I think it’s a partly a natural process, but we’re doing a great job of making things worse. I kind agree with JFrater, that it’ll be a fad and we’ll be laughing about it 10 years from now on Vh1 shows. Kind of like El Nino, ya know?

22. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 10:28 am

jadester: I was not suggesting it is not a problem because the growth is in third world countries - I am saying that the ONLY growth is in third world countries and they have the land and ability to deal with it (if their governments spend money on the land and not weapons). I believe that is what I said in my first post

23. Jen - April 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am

Chaz: Don’t read any Bruno Latour!

24. islanderbst - April 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am

I think it is very important to reduce pollution to improve things like drinking water and protecting wildlife, but I think global warming is over-hyped. For some to say that we’ve nearly destroyed an entire planet millions of years old in a few decades is over the top. I think we should clean-up locally, but earth will be ok globally

The hype is being driven by corporations as a way to increase sales. The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of businesses that lobby for policy changes; a recent one was the banning of traditional light bulbs in the Clean Energy Bill of 2007. These corporations will make billions by selling their new higher priced florescent bulbs.

The worst is GE, which uses its news channel MSNBC to promote green issues, ad nauseum. It’s never mentioned though that GE is one of the worlds largest polluters.

These companies are using catchy slogans like “ecomagination” to get people to buy their lastest washers and fridges, and get people to overlook the fact that these companies really haven’t reduced their waste and emissions.

I predict in 10 years, when everyone has their new light bulbs, new dryers, etc., global warming will be phased out and then the corporations will come up with some new threat to grow sales.

25. jadester - April 12th, 2008 at 10:36 am

I just didn’t understand what you meant. That is true that it is only in third world countries, but how long could they possibly sustain themselves? They can’t even do it now… and we are the ones who use their land for our production needs. Let’s be honest, we pay these countries lots of money to let us use their land and the money goes to these leaders who will never but their people before money.
Maybe a few of these nations will sort themselves out but the vast majority will stay this way for a very long time, espescially if we keep showing a need for their resources.

26. jadester - April 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am

*put
Sorry i have a stuffed up nose

27. Peter - April 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am

jesus causes global warming

28. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am

jadester: we can’t nanny these developing nations - they must come to their own aid - if the government won’t help - they must fight to get government that will. Before they reach a crisis of overpopulation they will fix their governments. It is far too early for us to add yet another “world crisis” - we are already spending a fortune on an unprovable Global warming - let’s not add to the pot

29. JT - April 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am

“JT: re GM crops - do we really want to replace our natural crops with copyrighted crops? Have you heard about the farmer suicides in India relating to Monsanto and GM crops?”

According to that article they do work, and the main reason for the suicides is poor management in one area. My suggestion is not to replace natural crops, but merely to use GM crops in areas where it is necessary. This article sums up my feelings: http://findarticles.com/p/arti....._n21315895

And though I know, Catholics see contraception as a mortal sin, I don’t personally know of any Catholics who abide by these laws. Jesus came to get rid of the ridiculous OT laws and instill a new, more liberal ideology of doing no harm and trying to help those in trouble. I think when children in Africa are being born already infected with AIDs because young African men can not control there urges, this is a serious issue, and the Pope, who is an ideological leader to many Catholic Africans, would do well to at least suggest somekind of solution to thsi problem, apart from abstinence, which can only fail.

The article you linked mentioned only the pill, when I was referring specifically to condoms. In a country where 1 in 4 people is infected with AIDs, not using a condom is idiotic.

30. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am

JT: my point was that the Pope is not ABLE to allow contraceptives - so don’t look to him to support that As for Catholics who use them - that is between them and God - but they are committing a serious sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Contraception condemnation is not an old testament thing - it was taught by the apostles as well - hence its presence in Christianity through the Catholic Church.

Regardless of my own feelings on the matter - I really don’t see why abstinence is not an acceptable alternative - if you don’t fuck - you don’t get disease - that is a 100% guarantee. For 100% of people who practice it - it works. Why discard it?

31. jesse - April 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am

i was pretty damn cold last night

32. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am

jesse: I was pelted by hail today - AND we had thunder and lightning.

33. jadester - April 12th, 2008 at 11:13 am

jfrater: I know we shouldn’t nanny them, but I think we as consumers should take the responsibility of not needing such luxurious lives that nations need to suffer.
In a way, overpopulation or at least starvation has reached crisis levels in some countries and their governments havent stepped in yet - what makes you think they would with a bigger population? I would never underestimate the power of some people’s greed.
But if the governments do decide to get their acts together and they prosperous nations and not starving then what happens? We have nations of people who live like capatilists and they would be wanting bigger houses, cars, etc. But now, (I’m using your figure here) we have 5 billion MORE people living this way and using up resources. So really, a cure for this crisis would not be simply to grow crops in lands that have starvation but to reprogram people to either (a) not want to live such luxurious lives or (b) begin a population decline, which would take a lot of leadership and may not be noticable for maybe a century.
So if you look at it this way, we are kind of already in a situation where overpopulation is inevitable.
And, no matter which way this plays out, the countries that we live in will have their quality of life affected - simply by the depletion of resources.

34. Mom424 - April 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am

I believe global warming to be a naturally occurring phenomenon that we are exacerbating through excessive release of greenhouse gases. Everything I’ve read says that the speed of change (ocean temperatures, global temperatures - don’t go by 1 or 2 years, there can be small blips in an overall trend, decreasing ice shelf, decreasing glaciers, melting of permafrost etc) are happening quicker than ever before experienced. Ice cores, peat bogs, and the like provide the evidence.

I don’t believe the total destruction, doom and gloom outcome either. I think we will end up with more extremes in weather; more storms, higher winds, Hardest hit will be marginal areas - it will put them over the edge. (Growing desert in Sudan)

We should do what we can. Burning fossil fuels for power is still one of the major contributors of pollution, so increase funding for alternate power sources, provide monetary incentives (tax breaks and the like) for converting to environmentally innocuous practices. Its a good idea anyway, it would be great to come up with an alternative before we run out of fossil fuels altogether. I don’t believe anyone will say that our current practices are good for the environment.

35. JT - April 12th, 2008 at 11:16 am

Thank you jfrater, I didn’t realise contraception was a NT matter, I thought it was an OT oddity, like eating shrimp being a one way ticket to Hell. However, did Jesus have anything to say on the matter? Because the apostles were simply products of their era, and can’t really be seen as authoratative on matters of morality I would imagine. After all, it was Paul who said that “drunkards, adulterers and homosexuals” would never see the gates of Heaven. I was just hoping that the Pope could “re-interpret” Catholic dogma, the way he did with tenets such as the Assumption, evolution and the requirememnts of sainthood, as to suggest that, in extreme circumstances, contraception CAN be seen as an alternative, if say, you know you’re going to get AIDs from your partner.

As for abstinence, it is ideal. But we’re not talking about a utopia here, or even Western Europe. We’re talking about Africa, where there’s nothing to do BUT “fuck”, where rape rates are astronomical and where people are simply too uneducated and uncultured to make rational decisions regarding sex. So I support abstinence in the same way I support bubble suits - great, but not going to happen. That’s why condoms are vital, along, of course with sex education.

36. shamzahm - April 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am

yes and yes.

37. SMD - April 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am

My question is: why does it matter if we’re causing global warming? We have to change anyway, so rather than needing an excuse like “the planet will kill us all”, shouldn’t we just do it because it’s necessary?
There isn’t enough proof that global warming is caused by humans. Volcanoes release more toxins into the atmosphere than we do and I don’t see anyone clambering to put corks in them to stop it. The point is, it doesn’t matter if we’re causing it. We still have to get off fossil fuels and to different forms of energy that are renewable and reliable. The sun is reliable. Wind is moderately reliable, the ocean currents are rather reliable. Why aren’t we making significant efforts to utilize these natural functions? Oil will run out (though I don’t believe for a second it’s in the next 20 years…there’s no shortage…sorry, there isn’t, it’s a load of bunk and the oil companies know it).
The solution isn’t to deal with global warming, because if the planet is warming up, we can’t stop it anyway. We humans are exceedingly arrogant when we think we can accurately control the Earth. Over and over again this little planet has shown us that we have no control whatsoever. We can’t stop tidal floods, we can’t stop volcanoes or Earth quakes or tornadoes, or any of it. The planet is going to do whatever it wants and we’re here for the ride.
But we can control how we use the planet for our own means. We need alternate fuels and we don’t need them next year, we need them tomorrow. Oil companies should be significantly investing in these things because when the oil runs out, they’re out of jobs.
I don’t believe in Global Warming. I think the problem with GW people now is that they are doing exactly what the anti-GW folks used to do: ignoring evidence to the contrary (legit evidence mind you). You don’t have the whole picture and for anyone to tell us we’re killing the planet without proper evidence is unethical. There is too much evidence against GW and too much for it for us to be certain what is happening. Not to mention the fact that this little planet used to be a lot warming than it is now and technically the planet has been warming up for a long time ever since the ice age. If the planet is doing what it does naturally anyway then we really can’t do much about it. We just have to change because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s meant to save our butts. Give me hydrogen powered cars and really good solar power and get rid of annoying oil and crap. I don’t like oil anyway, it’s useless in the long run.

38. Jen - April 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am

We’re talking about Africa, where there’s nothing to do BUT “fuck”, where rape rates are astronomical and where people are simply too uneducated and uncultured to make rational decisions regarding sex.

Hmm, sounds like Alabama.

Seriously, though, abstinence doesn’t “work” anywhere, because people are always going to have sex. Promoting abstinence is only going to result in people knowing less about what to do to protect themselves (from disease and babies) once they’re having it.

39. Dustfinger - April 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am

I think we’re fucking over the environment by polluting it, but I don’t believe in global warming. I mean, come on, it’s been 32 degrees outside every morning in Southern California since December.

40. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am

JT: Can you give me an example of the Dogma that contradicts the current teachings on evolution (science - so not dogmatic), the Assumption (defined as a dogma but not in contradiction to any other dogma that says otherwise), and requirements of sainthood (not dogmatic - but practical)? As far as I am aware - dogma is a very strictly defined thing - a pope can not contradict a dogmatic decree. The three things you mention are not in contradiction to any defined dogmas. A dogmatic decree has been made on contraception (Humanae Vitae - Paul VI I think).

No Pope has ever contradicted another dogmatic decree - if the assumption was a “re-interpretation” there had to be a former decree that declared it otherwise.

I certainly look forward to seeing the decrees you come up with!

41. J. S. - April 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am

well… just because it’s colder now has NO say in what warming trends are. it can be the worst winter on record in a long time… but the general trend is still going up. i think what i learned form my class was that there is a cycling of temperatures every 10-20 years of abnormal hot and cold, but this trend still goes upwards.

but even if you don’t believe it (which i do) it’s still nice to do things to prevent all the ’causes’, right? less carbon emissions, sustainable environment… it still does good for the earth no matter if it would help warming or not~

42. Gravy - April 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

global warming is a fad. This earth has been through so many more serious things that a tiny tiny temperature increase over a hundred year period. Its a cult that companies are marketing on in order to sell more hybrid cars and “green” household detergents.
its all BS that record numbers of people are believing, and I think its shamefull.

43. CT Guy - April 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

The earth has been warmer (and cooler) in the past.I think that in 20 years people will watch Al Gores movie the same way “Reefer Madness” is watched today. The sun is a nuclear furnace ,not a gas fire.It burns hotter at times,and cooler at other times. The fact that convinces me is the polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking . Is it from the two rovers we sent or could it be that the sun is burning a little hotter at this point in time?

44. Chickensoup - April 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Alls I know is that when I was a kid, we used to get a white Christmas. Not any more. Now we get both blazing sunshine and hailstones every God-damn day. You may think that global warming is BS but if you can’t tell me any other reason for this crazy weather then maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to write it off.

45. JT - April 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

jfrater: I use the word dogma so often I forgot it had a strict religious meaning. Simple misunderstanding.

46. jfrater - April 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

JT: NP (I’m a poet!)

47. boaby - April 12th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

no.

its natural.

48. mitchsn - April 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

perfect example of junk science imo.

Scientists told us we were heading for the next ice age 50 years ago. Why? So they could make money.

Al Gore’s net worth when he ran for pres in 2004 = 1million
Al Gore’s net worth after his global warming hysteria campaign = 100 million.

49. Csimmons - April 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Really, if scientists were wrong 50 years ago about an ice age, then why should we believe them now?

50. Mom424 - April 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Chickensoup; Do you get thunderstorms in winter now too?
We get them frequently; they used to be rare. Winter without a cold January/February is just wrong.

51. Steve - April 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

@ J.S. Limiting carbon emissions just “because” is stupid. Some of the things Al Gore, California, and Kyoto Protocol want to do are drastic measures which would have adverse effects on economies and just our everyday lives. Unless it’s proven that it’s a serious problem why mess up our system and lower our standard of living?

52. Kreachure - April 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

The weather is getting worse and more unpredictable everywhere you look. It’s a process that’s ongoing and undeniable. (Even if it’s not happening at your backyard. Try seeing beyond your nose once in a while.)

That means that the global climate system is destabilizing, or changing into something new altogether.

That’s enough for me to worry, whatever name you may give to ‘that’.

53. Francis T. Manns Ph.D. - April 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

People find what they look for and the minute a scientist believes his own hypothesis, he’s a dead duck as a scientist.
My hypothesis is climate change is not man-made.
The hypothesis runs:
It’s not solar irradiance alone.
It’s not sunspots alone.
It’s not CO2 above 18 C.
it’s not water vapour alone.
It’s not cosmic radiation alone.’
But it may be cosmic and solar radiation modulated by solar magnetic activity subtly changing the cloud albedo of Earth.
Beware the unintended consequences of sequestering plant food during the famine.

54. Phillies - April 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Global warming is an extremely natural process that earth goes through. As someone said earlier, the sun gets hotter and cooler at different times, and it affects earth as a direct result. I suppose Al Gore needs a lot of money, otherwise he wouldn’t have taken up the cause.

And environmentalists, quite frankly, can screw themselves. I understand their concerns, but forcing others to live the way you do is simply bullcrap. And I’m not giving up beef products. Maybe cows ruin the environment through their fecal matter and farts. Who cares? As long as beef continues to be delicious, we will always have cows for us to snack upon.

Forgive my generalization (if there are environmentalists who don’t force their lifestyle on others, I apologize), but that’s how I feel.

55. Bass - April 12th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

yes and yes

56. Tonny SS - April 12th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

State of Fear, by Michael Crichton.

Go read it.

57. Dan - April 12th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Mitchsn: he ran for president in 2000, not 2004.

58. panda - April 12th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Humans only contribue 0.28% of all greenhouse gases.
I think it’s pretty dumb how we are spending billions of dollars on trying to stop something natural.
Pollution we should try and reduce, but global warming no.

59. Crimanon - April 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Has anyone mentioned cow farts yet: http://theloispage.com/misc/bovineindex.html

Farm farts are funny. For anyone who believes this massive cattle flop, Please do us a favor and do your part. Stop Breathing.

60. travis - April 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

i feel it is arrogant to believe that we can keep the climate static and the same, when climate change is the natural state of the earth. we should get off fossil fuels, and move to renewable resources, but that would be more for human benifeit that the benefit of the earth.

61. damnit - April 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I’ll so straight to the point, but I’m not saying its caused by human intention.
Could humans generate global warming artificially using modern technology and natural ressources?

62. Bad News - April 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

CT Guy: In fact, I believe the sun to be a “gigantic” nuclear furnace…

Here’s a link with temp avgs going back 425,000 years:

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/sci.....change.htm
Historically, looks like we’re right about where we should be. I don’t think there’s a concensus among people who earn money studying GW, so my opinion is worth little. But it seems, given that minor temp changes can have cataclysmic effects, that *any* contribution by us of greenhouse gases is not a super great thing.

JFrater: I would sooner hope that we’d sprout non-reproductive sex organs than rely on abstinence. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution are a nearly immutable force. Of course the Catholic church is anti-contraceptive — it is an organization stuck in the Middle Ages, and its anachronistic beliefs continue to marginalize it.

Not to offend anyone or anything…

63. Rosa - April 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I believe in global warming, but to a very limited extent. I mean, of course, we’re messing up earth and we can’t expect after all the junk we do to it for earth to just go unscathed. But seriously, changes on earth have been happening since forever and will continue to happen for forever. Yeah, we can make some things better for ourselves, but in general, the earth wins, hands down; life (not necessarily HUMAN life) continues no matter what, and quite unevitably, one day humans will disappear to give way to something else.

Earth and Life: 1 Humans: 0

(Tonny SS: yeah, great book. everyone should read it.)

64. goof_ball - April 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

I think Global Warming is real but it’s not as serious as everyone thinks. Some of it’s caused by man but the plantet just heats up and cools down on it’s own some times.

65. goof_ball - April 12th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

*planet*

66. Tonny SS - April 12th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

I think Global Warming is not where the concern should be.

I think deforestation is serious problem, but not because of Global Warming.

Instead we wasted a god damn load of money into research. For what? For expensive alternative energy that now turns out not to be environmental friendly at all.

67. Dread Pirate Bob - April 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Its funny, I’m 39 and when I was a kid I remember there was talk of a “new ice age” and that everything was getting colder, now its “global warming” Clearly no one knows what’s going on and are just making shit up as they go along and pretend they are presenting “facts” rather than conjecture

68. Dana - April 12th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

For my 2 cents, the world goes through lots of changes. It gets warmer, it gets colder, and so on. We probably aren’t helping it much but I seriously doubt we’re going to destroy the planet.

69. Shlufi - April 12th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Global Warming is caused by man; this is not disputed by legitimate scientist across the globe. What one can debate about is the earth’s natural tendency to cool and heat on it’s own through natural cycles. In addition, Carbon Dioxide should not be the only concern in combating global warming. As mentioned before, deforestation and habitat destruction plays a major role in contributing to Global Warming. What troubles me even more than Global Warmings is that we as a species have technology that enables us to combat it’s affects, yet we are not we are not doing what is necessary to secure our planets future. The greatest threat is not Global Warming, but human complacency.

70. Kai4a - April 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

I saw on the news a couple weeks ago that the 4 major weather monitoring stations had released their latest annual report and that they estimate the global average temperature had dropped 0.65-0.75 degrees celcius in the last year, which is the greatest drop ever recorded and enough to make up for the last 100 years of global warming. My personal belief is that global warming is the new “Ozone Layer.” Politicians and the scientists in their pockets are exaggerating or fabricating the issue to increase their influence. The earth’s climate is not and has never been static.

71. Crimanon - April 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

http://www.livescience.com/env.....crays.html : My goal for the day is to keep people informed… I’m so freaking bored.

72. CFEstes - April 12th, 2008 at 7:15 pm

I personally have seen plenty of photographic showing the dramatic decrease of the surface areas of many glaciated areas (mountain tops, polar ice caps, ice sheets, etc.) I can say from what I’ve seen there seems to be a great deal of melting in a very short amount of time (geologically speaking). However, I believe that global warming is a platform that is abused often as an excuse to make money or to climb up on one’s soapbox. It is a great scare tactic for some people and political groups. I do believe that the excess use of greenhouse gasses and the unncessarily large amount of pollution do spell out definate trouble in the future, but I also think it’s fairly safe to say that the end is not immenent and global warming is not a phonomenon that will do in human kind.

73. CFEstes - April 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

*photographic evidence

74. BOB123 - April 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm

we all know what is really causing global warming…

its that damn man/bear/pig, just like gore has been trying to tell us all along

75. DiscHuker - April 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

it is getting warmer every day here in texas. climatologists predict that in just 60 days we will be exceeding 100 degrees almost daily.

some sort of yearly warming trend that generally happens between may and august.

76. chestah - April 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I am quite concerned with the lack of faith in science evinced here. For all the people who brought up the “global cooling” in the 70s, it was never more than a blip on the scientific radar. Very few scientists agreed with it. On the other hand, a gigantic report by a large group of scientists presented to the U.N. has stated that global warming is real and at least partially caused by humans. The two situations are extremely different and to compare them is really not a good argument at all.

As for the effects of gloabal warming, I believe they may be somewhat overblown, but certainly something we need to prevent if we can and prepare for if we have to. The effects will probably not be noticed so much on a small timescale (year-to-year) but over a much longer time. For example, the Canadian Prairies (Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba) which provide most of Canada’a agricultural output, have had steadily decreasing rainfall, increasing temperatures, lower lake levels, and longer summers over the past 30 years. (www.diavik.ca/News/2006/DOE%20Record%20Warm%20Winter.pdf) Agricultural output has remained steady due to better farming techniques, but an exacerbation of this may cause Canada to produce, and therefore export, less food. Again, the large effects that people need to see probably won’t happen, but the small things that affect everyone are happening already.

And for overpopulation, there have recently been food riots in Egypt, Haiti, and Mexico due to increased prices for food. This is in part due to government policies and the decisions of a few large companies, but as countries with large populations becoming bigger, more wealthy , and eating more and better food (China, Brazil, Mexico spring to mind) this is going to get worse and worse. The Earth may be able to support some more people with better food distribution but we will have to come up with some major advances in food technology to continue the growth we are experiencing.

77. jongleur - April 12th, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Back in 1896 Svante Arrhenius (those of you who didn’t snooze through chemistry might recognize the name, his work described ions in an aqueous solution, he got a Nobel Prize out of that) was trying to come up with models for the Ice Ages. Through experimentation, he deduced that a doubling in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause about a 5 Degree C rise in temperature. Recent models indicate that he was a little high, it is now thought that it causes a 3.6 Degree C rise in temperature.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from about 280ppm to 380ppm, or a bit over 30%.

As far as ‘colder’ winters. Warmer seas will increase the amount of water vapor, as it moves inland it will eventually encounter something that will cause it to precipitate out. Thus heavy snowfalls in places like the midwest.

On the other hand, Europe is certainly seeing warming. My brother lives in Sweden, this year they never saw the waterways around Stockholm freeze over, which is very unusual. The story “Hans Brinker” probably would not have been written today, over the last hundred years, the famous canals in Holland rarely freeze solidly enough to allow skaters.

Variation is normal, but the overall trend in temperatures is pretty clear. We might see bumps up/down, but I suspect we’re in for a bad time in the not too distant future. A small shift in temperature can have disastrous effects, the “Year without a summer” (1816, the year Mt Tambora dump tons of ash in the atmosphere) saw a mean decrease of less than 1 Degree C, and yet it caused havoc worldwide with food production.

78. CRussey - April 12th, 2008 at 9:43 pm

cows are a main producer of greenhouse gas, therefore, we should eat every cow that we see

79. copperdragon - April 12th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Global warming and freezing is natural. Humans might be nudging it along a little, but it is an inevitable phenomenon. We should be preparing for it, not trying to stop it or slow it.

80. Phillies - April 12th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

78. CRussey
No, no no. That’s absolutely the wrong way to think. Don’t eat them because they produce GAS…eat them because they’re DELICIOUS.

81. J. S. - April 12th, 2008 at 10:07 pm

@ Steve: true, standard of living would go down, but people would be happier (i’m reading affluenza in my college english class right now) and it’s a shame that America is so consumer based… too bad people think having things makes life good. yes, we are a rich country, but we shouldn’t abuse it too much.

this is the 1st thread in which i’ve commented, and even with all the disagreements, it’s all civilized and it’s very fun heheheh!

82. Jono - April 12th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

We need to measure the release of radiant energy from the Earth, and the radiant energy from the Sun and other sources.

From this we can see if there is a net increase in energy, which will mean there is heating.

Ice core evaluation seems to prove that the Earth periodically changes in temperature, but it’s still unknown why at this stage.

Regardless of any heating or cooling, we are stuffing the planet up. Global warming could be a side effect of a bigger issue, which is pollution. Pollution seems to have taken a backseat to global warming in the recent years, but it has got noticeable effects, it’s proven. It’s far more damaging, and far easier to stop and reverse.

Also, the world is overpopulated now. Doesn’t matter if it stays the same, or decreases. There are too many people, and we’re already seeing it now. With the mandatory introduction of biofuel quotas, we’re seeing food stocks deplete even lower. Here in New Zealand, we’ve seen the food stocks go down from about 130 days, to just 50 days. All countries are affected by this. And the only way to quickly fix it (the only way things get down on Earth) is to cut down more forests, and grow food (or fuel) crops.

Biofuel is the stupidest idea ever.

83. jfrater - April 13th, 2008 at 12:41 am

Wow - only 82 comments - I really thought this one would be controversial! I guess it is good that it isn’t

84. incognito228 - April 13th, 2008 at 2:33 am

Some facts seem to have escaped people’s attention. First of all the IPCC, is not a scientfic organisation. Indeed Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has called for its abolition. Excerpt: The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide “evidence” that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples’ opinions instead of science to “prove” their case.
(see http://www.nov55.com/ipcc.html)

Secondly, the small increase (less than 1 degree centigrade) in global temperatures for the century prior to 1998 has had no deleterious effect on the world. For example, there is no empirical evidence to back up claims that hurricanes have increased due to man-made global warming, indeed the reverse may be true. Also it is a fact that more people die from cold events than warm events.

What we are talking about here is a political movement, evidenced by the fact that so many people get downright nasty when it should be a plain discussion about the science (which is not settled, by the way).

No-one is suggesting that we should do more to protect the environment and preserving resources, but there are different ways and means of achieving that. The sudden rush to biofuels, as the previous poster noted, is causing widespread chaos in terms of food stocks, prices and destruction of rainforests. A daft idea in the first place, but typical of the usual headless-chicken ideas emanating from the so-called “green” sector. I am appalled when politicians (I believe Chancellor Merckel was one) spout nonsense like “we need to keep keep temperature rise down to 2 degrees”. Huh? Where’s the thermostat?

There will be technological advances in the offing which will help reduce our dependency on oil, but these will take time to develop. In the interim the market price of oil will ensure that there will be a general per capita reduction, as in the case of any commodity. Those who spout the alarmist views are often those who want to see a headlong shutdown of western (specifically American) economies. Such an eventuality, if allowed to happen, would cause worldwide econonomic problems which in turn would cause more deaths through starvation, particularly amongst the poorest nations, than any supposed (and often fabricated) effect of “global warming”.

Besides which, global temperatures are cooling. Alarmists will say this is just due to El Nino which is merely an “interannual variation” event. Funny how they don’t dismiss its warmer relative and predecessor, La Nina, as an interannual variation too. There is a growing belief among some very prominent scientists that we shall soon experience a natural cooling phase. Wise heads - of which there seem to be few around in positions of power - will see this possibility and will ditch the daft CO2 targets (daft because they are unachievable, will cause economic hardship and will merely line the pockets of the existing rich - no names - who underpin the morally bankrupt cap-and-trade business) to concentrate on the energy and agricultural issues which a cold trend will present.

85. AFarter - April 13th, 2008 at 2:42 am

A dilettante’s fashionable pet cause. Nothing more. The whole African continent is her playground as well.

86. Harry Husted - April 13th, 2008 at 7:08 am

Global warming is the biggest hoax ever. Global warming is no more true than Santa Claus. The idea of Global warming was created by the Queen of England in the ’90s as a political ploy so she could get grant money to produce certain hybrid cars.

We are not in a warming period. I have solid proof that will show conclusively that global warming is a hoax. I will publish this information on my website soon.

87. Yarr - April 13th, 2008 at 7:15 am

Tax-grab.

That’s all it is.

88. Mom424 - April 13th, 2008 at 8:01 am

Harry; Global warming is not true? or Human activity causing it? Proof? I can just imagine. Same kind of proof that the moon landing was a hoax? or the same kind of proof that WTC was taken down with explosives and not aircraft? I can’t wait. Post the link when you’re done.

89. Badjuggler - April 13th, 2008 at 8:01 am

What kind of MoronFest is this message board? Of course climate change is real. We are killing this planet. Simply trying to deny it will not help. Only an idiot would think that. And there are plenty of idiots on this board. 99.9% of scientists agree it is a vital problem that needs a solution NOW and look at all of the science deniers coming out of the woodwork. Like the button I wear on my lapel: SCIENCE - IT WORKS, BITCHES!

90. chestah - April 13th, 2008 at 8:04 am

incognito228: One scientist from the IPCC changing his mind does render the entire process null and void. His claims that “Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible” are not backed up in any way. He also the only person (as far as I know) from the IPCC to change your mind. 1/3750 is pretty impressive.

As for higher oil prices decreasing comsumption, it seems like common sense, but it’s not happening. In fact, oil production by OPEC has been increasing steadily since 1999 (http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm).

You seem to just be cherrypicking scientifically unsound data to support your own causes, which seems to be a common trend among people who don’t agree with global warming. The Sun changing its irradiance is a completely ridiculous idea and most of the arguments against it are summed up on page 2 of this article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html). The man completely ignores the effects of the greenhouse effect which makes his calculation laughable. Because Earth has an albedo which is more than twice that of Mars (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/phyopt/albedo.html), even if Mars temperature is caused by the Sun, it would have a negligible effect on the Earth.

91. Harry Husted - April 13th, 2008 at 8:20 am

Badjuggler and chestah, you have a lot to learn. You are so damn brainwashed that you can’t see your face if you were in front of the mirror. As for the sun, many scientists in the world agree that the sun has a lot to do with the way the climate works. Don’t you know that. Those who call people idiots are morons themselves. They just cover it up by calling other people names to cover over their own insecurities. The fact is that there are constant gamma rays shooting off the sun and when they enter the Earth’s atmosphere, they disrupt the magnetic field around the planet. When the magnetic field is disrupted, this causes a change in wind currents. This is a scientific fact that has been proven many times by scientists and meteorologists as well.

There is undeniable proof that global warming is a hoax and I have many facts, backed up by many scientists, to prove it.

You can debunk my words all you want. You can do so because you are ignorant to the truth. When you learn the truth and still fail to believe it, you will find yourself putting your head between your legs in shame as others laugh and scoff at your failed attempts to carry on your own false beliefs.

92. CFAustin - April 13th, 2008 at 8:34 am

My question is why do the global warmists never mention the extra energy the sun has been producing over the last 100 years? Take a look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....labels.svg

Do you notice the spike in Solar Variance over the last 100 years? Also, if you think that isn’t significant, look at the Solar Variance of the 1700s. It’s at the lowest point on that graph. The significance of this is there was a mini ‘ice age’ in the 1700s. Coincidence? I think not.

Another point. Has anybody actually looked at the carbon production of one volcano? One volcanic eruption produces enough carbon emissions as one decade of human activity. That means, with all the volcanic eruptions of the past, the volcanic emissions dwarf everything we’ve ever done.

Also, I laugh at the idiot behind the wheel of a Hybrid Car. Did you know that it takes as many carbon emissions to make one Hybrid car as it does a Hummer to reach 100,000 miles?

CFAustin

93. chestah - April 13th, 2008 at 8:37 am

Harry: Do you have some peer-reviewed articles on that? Because I would really enjoy reading them. I’m in my fourth year of a combined honours physics and astronomy degree and I have yet to hear about gamma rays from the Sun changing the Earth’s magnetic field in the upper atmosphere and somehow altering wind currents near sea level. This “undeniable proof that global warming is a hoax […] backed up by many scientists” would also be quite interesting to read.

94. Mom424 - April 13th, 2008 at 8:41 am

Harry Husted; you said

“The fact is that there are constant gamma rays shooting off the sun and when they enter the Earth’s atmosphere, they disrupt the magnetic field around the planet.”

I say bunkum. So do many others. Here is one of many statements available to discount above stupidity.

“Arguing that Shaviv and Veizer had in places adjusted the data, “in one case by 40 million years”, the Eos team says they did not show any correlation between cosmic rays and climate.

And even if their analysis had been methodologically correct, it says, their work applied to time scales of several million years, while the current climate warming has occurred during just a hundred years, for which completely different mechanisms are relevant.”

So misrepresentation of data (only 40 million years off) and poor application of the facts.

Try again.

95. chestah - April 13th, 2008 at 8:58 am

CFAustin: Because even the most optimistic estimates from the person who did the research still only say that the Sun could account for no more than 30% of the temperature increase seen. (http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125691.100)

As for the volcanoes argument, I would be interested where you got your numbers because (http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html) says that human emissions are more than 150 times that of volcanoes in any given year. It also has a peer-reviewed study to back it up!

96. dave4248 - April 13th, 2008 at 10:06 am

Global warming…is it real? Short answer..No. Long answer…probably no. My proof of this comes from “global warmers” themselves. When there’s a cold snap, they scream “global warming.” Fine, but when there’s a heat wave, they scream “global warming” AGAIN. Those aren’t reasonable protocals. They’ve set it up so they CAN’T lose. It sounds like religion to me. When God answers your prayers, he loves you. When he doesn’t….he loves you, but he’s “testing” you. Another proof…..nuclear power. It gives off NO CO2, yet “global warmers” are OPPOSED to it. Why? Isn’t this global warming thing an emergency, and not merely a crisis?

97. SB - April 13th, 2008 at 11:41 am

I can’t believe there are so many people who still don’t think global warming is real.

I am afraid for this planet.

98. jongleur - April 13th, 2008 at 11:48 am

They are in complete denial. Easier to believe that the big bad boys are out to steal their money than it is to understand that they’ll have to make changes.

People/Species who don’t adapt to changes end up in museums, with a label saying “Extinct” next to their exhibit.

99. dantheman - April 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

of course its real. know ive seen a few times people here saying about their city being the coldest this year ina while, or insane winter storms blah blah blah. i guess they dont realize taht global warming is on a …GLOBAL scale. yes your city might have a few more coooold days than normal, but other places might have a few less cold days than normal. besides this global warming that could endanger us all is only going to warm up by a few degrees on average.

You can’t deny that the earth is getting colder when antartic and glacial ice is melting at a record pace and not building up enough during colder months. The amount of ice at the northern pole is lessening almost every year. Those ice caps, being white, reflect alot of the suns heat. as the earth heats up, more ice is melting meaning that the darker water is absorbing more of the suns heat in turn making the earth hotter too. Being from southern lousiana i can say this this winter was pretty warm compared to the winters past.
i just hope people can educate themselves enough about this topic before picking sides.
the science and evidence is there, just look for it.

100. stanners - April 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

The question should really be in two parts:
1) Is the earth experiencing a greater than normal variation in climate conditions and temperature?
Yes
2) Is this due to human activity or natural variation?
Who knows, the evidence cannot support either conclusion, and equally qualified experts disagree on this matter.

101. stanners - April 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I learnt at school that we are still coming out of the last ice age, and that there have been at least six ice ages in the last 200,000 years. What causes these? in the past the earth has cooled and warmed up without any human contribution, and as volcanic activity has remained constant for many millions of years, what causes the ice ages and subsequent warming?

102. Crimanon - April 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

I’m noticing a trend here. One person says THIS, another person say WRONG, LOOK AT THAT. The FIrst person goes AH HA, HACK! HERE IS WHY. Third person agrees with First and brings THE OTHER. Second, MORE PROOF. Third… first… second… first… second… third… first… third… second… Never ending arguments brought forth by people not in the industry or community. How do we know that you didn’t just find some educated “Looking” senior project. You can find ANYTHING on the internet. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it’s true. Find Proof, by way of Published Scientific Study, not most commonly held opinion. No statistics unless you can source it, just bad manners, and every one knows 43% of all statistics are made up.

CFAustin: Do you listen to everything the Wiki tells you.

Harry Husted: Do you Really think that insulting someone will make the think as you do.

Badjuggler: Refer to my Statistical Proof, and the comment to Harry. Courtesy: It’s good form Dick head!

103. charlie - April 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Personally, I don’t think there is enough evidence out there for any one to make a decision on anything. All we have is recorded dated from the last couple centuries. We have only been able to look at the ozone layer for the last fifty years. Right now I don’t think scientists have a good enough model of anything to make any kind of judgement one way or the other. Take R-12 freon for an example. The scientist’s stated that it was ruining the ozone layer. They stated that it was the chlorine in the freon attaching itself to the oxygen molecules in ozone layer making heavy oxygen and hence the ozone layer is evaporating. all this is in laymen’s terms. next we hear that the ozone is fixing itself. great we still have millions of cars leaking r 12 into the atmosphere and it is fixing itself hmmmmm. makes you think doesn’t it. I still believe the R12 scandal was just another way for the big companies hence Dupont from making one freon to making another freon for cars r 134 which is worse on the environment then R12 was.
Food for thought if it was the chlorine attaching itself to the ozone molecules why are we still allowed to use chlorine in our pools and water supplies. chlorine disappates{sp} out of pools just like it does out of air conditioning systems. I am not real smart it just seems to me money is the driving force behind everything that is done in this world call me a skeptic if you like .

104. incognito228 - April 13th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Chestah, I have three points to make. Firstly, you know very well that Gray was not just 1 out of 3,750 (I think you meant 1 out of 2,500).

To quote: “An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.”
See: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

I’m not going into further arguments about figures, but suffice to say it is quite evident that there are a number of scientists who disagree with the IPCC, and a number who do.

Secondly, I have no doubt that oil production by OPEC has been increasing steadily since 1999. With the growth of developing countries that is to be expected. I said that per capita demand falls with price, and I stand by that assertion.

Thirdly, and despite your somewhat unpleasant assertion that I “seem to just be cherrypicking scientifically unsound data to support your own causes, which seems to be a common trend among people who don’t agree with global warming.”, I should point out that I did not mention solar irradiance at all in my post!

Since you’ve brought up solar activity, though, there are scientists around the world who suggest that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) which is believed to be behind the El Nino and La Nina phenomena are correlated to solar activity.

See: http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/pdotrend.htm

You may also find the following quite interesting if for no other reason than it can be found on the website of HM Treasury (UK government):

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/.....ctober.pdf

105. CFAustin - April 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Chestah: I see you keep posting ‘Peer reviewed articles’ and I see you say you’re a student. This does not sway me toward your belief in mad made global warming. I showed you the evidence on the sun, and that is all I can do about that.

It is my experience that those who want a socialist/communist society, tend to believe in global warming. You may laugh, but I bet you’re all for taxing the ‘evil rich’ and giving those taxes to the ‘unfortunate and unlucky’ poor.

106. Tonny SS - April 13th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

CFAustin, Harry Husted. You’re not helping. Stop it.

See incognito for how to make a good argument.

I, for one, is not denying Global Warming and calling it a hoax. But most likely, this scientist means well, they are concerned, and ultimately, they simply committed causation vs correlation fallacy.

They missed Solar Cycle. They missed Volcanic Eruption. They ignored Urban climate. They decried any skeptic as enemy of the planet. They ignored the fact that in some place glacier GROW and desert receded. They found themselves excuses when data didn’t go their way.

107. jongleur - April 13th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Actually, the scientists who’ve been studying Global Warming are factoring in things like Volcanic Eruptions, Solar Cycles and Urban Climates.

The problem is, that even after those are factored in (and none of them seem to be particularly operative at the moment except for Urbanization) they can still not account for the steady rise in temperature, unless you factor in the 30% rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century or so. And then it makes sense.

Since they have already factored in CO2 from volcanoes, that leaves anthropogenic CO2 as the most likely factor. Looking at any urban skyline and the areas downwind from those urban areas tends to add weight to the argument.

108. stormy617 - April 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

WOW I have not been on the computer very much this past week and a half or so, therefore I have a LOT!!!! of lists and comments to catch up with.

When I logged on today with time to read I just had to read this one first I knew it was going to be interesting, and I must say it has been very entertaining LOL.

I myself don’t feel that GW is as horrible and terrifying as some are saying.

I agree with what has been said many times, the Earth is going to go through her cycles of warming and cooling and there is not a damn thing that we can do about that. We do need to worry however about developing alternative fuels.

I am really looking forward to checking this list out tomorrow, after our regulars who are not online over the weekends get to work and get to reading and commenting!!

It should get even more entertaining once that happens, I am especially looking forward to Randall’s return.

This was a great Your View JFray!!!!!

109. Hannah - April 13th, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Oooh yay!! I’ve been waiting for this question to come up as a “Your View”!

I completely agree with you Jamie. It’s a ridiculous fad idea that is being propagated by the media, celebrities, and politicians who want to be “current” & “cool”. Granted, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try and live more “green” if you will. But, thanks to Al Gore’s joke of a documentary, it’s being taken to a ridiculous extreme and shoved down our throats as gospel truth. Wasn’t there a whole global warming push back in the 80s too?

I love the idea of the owner of The Weather Channel suing Al Gore over the whole global warming farce. I say DO IT!

110. Matt - April 13th, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Some rather disturbing comments here. I would expect there to be a few nutters out there still claiming global warming is a hoax, but it seems about half the comments express that view.

This is not a conspiracy theory!!!

There is plenty of credible evidence to back this up. Google ‘Global warming’ and do some research then make up your mind.

111. Phil - April 14th, 2008 at 2:07 am

Learn to swim.

112. Mom424 - April 14th, 2008 at 5:12 am

I can’t wait for Randall either - he doesn’t have to look things up in order to make sense.

I haven’t seen anyone mention global dimming and its effect re global warming. (google it and take a look at the difference in Southern California weather after they grounded airlines post 911) We have less and less sunshine reaching our planet and still the temperature is rising. How hot do you figure it would be without the mitigating effects of same?

I also have seen no mention as to what is going to happen if the ocean temperatures warm up enough to release all that methane trapped down there. Talk about greenhouse gases. This is really scary.

Randall - please tell me the methane thing is flawed. I can’t remember exactly but the ending is not good for us.

I can’t wait to get home from work and find out.

113. srichards - April 14th, 2008 at 5:14 am

hey where is Randall in this discussion, looks like the chip on his shoulder weighted him dowm

114. Du - April 14th, 2008 at 5:55 am

Ok, im not sure if this has been mentioned, but has anyone made the connection between global warming, and the solar flares from the sun?
also, is it true that the graph that matches in Al Gore’s movie were shifted 800 years?

115. srichards - April 14th, 2008 at 5:59 am

OK OK i’ll admit it, i miss his comments (the church of listuniverse, bringing lives together )

116. Columbo - April 14th, 2008 at 6:01 am

Whether or not you believe our climate is changing, the fact of the matter is that we’re polluting the shit out of this planet, while at the same time we are still dedicating time and resources on trying to prove if global warming is even real.
But fortunately I think the majority of people know that something’s not right, and that something needs to be done.

So my view is that the destruction of this planets oceans and forests as a result of our actions is very real, and anyone who will argue that fact needs a bracing reality check upside their head.

Also lets just save ourselves some trouble and refer to it not as ‘global warming’, but as ‘global pollution’.

117. bucslim - April 14th, 2008 at 6:08 am

Whaaaa? We have to have Randall to legitimatize this list? Jeez, think for yourself for a change.

I read somewhere that the dude who started the Weather Channel is on some sort of rampage against global warning. He’s probably smarter than I am about the weather. I also am old enough to remember ’scientists’ saying of a coming ice age - it was in the New York Times. And excuse me for not trusting weather data from covered wagon times. People back then were still shitting outdoors, churning butter and shooting anything that moved from atop rail cars. I’ll believe it when the sky is truly falling.

118. bucslim - April 14th, 2008 at 6:19 am

And “An Inconvenient Truth” was a mess. The only reason it won an Oscar was because Hollywood likes to congratulate itself on being so ‘broad minded’ on issues of the day. At the time Al Gore was spending over $30k in energy bills for his home, and flying all over the world to tell you to stop using so much energy.

It’s an inconvenient truth for everybody except Al Gore. He can burn as much fossil fuel as he wants, but shame on YOU for driving an SUV.

119. longball - April 14th, 2008 at 6:29 am

i’ve heard, but i dont know where to find it, that this last winter was the worlds coldest one in a long time and both degrees the atmosphere temperature has risen in the last two hundred years were negated by it being so cold???? so there is no global warming anymore????? i think…

120. srichards - April 14th, 2008 at 6:55 am

bucslim: Jackass!

121. Bob - April 14th, 2008 at 7:02 am

As if we could have such a broad effect on the planet. There simply aren’t enough people, and certainly not enough industrialized nations; there never could be.

122. bucslim - April 14th, 2008 at 7:10 am

srichards - Jackass the movie? I’m a jackass? Randall’s a jackass? Al Gore’s a jackass? The Weather Channel dude’s a jackass? Happy Gilmore’s a jackass? What? Which? Who?

123. Randall - April 14th, 2008 at 8:01 am

I’m touched that some people want me in on this discussion. But my patience is thin when it comes to this topic—especially with knee-jerk conservatives and their like who wantonly and disingenuously ignore the data because they don’t want to relinquish some cherished bad habits–habits which do harm to the environment–and because they fear “the economy” will be ruined utterly if we stop treating the planet like a rubbish heap.

YES OF COURSE global warming is real, and OF COURSE we are contributing mightily to it. All the data is there, and VERY FEW *reputable* scientists challenge it. In fact, the number of these has declined *steeply* over the last few years.

And bucslim, don’t toss freakin’ TV meteorologists our way when we’re talking SCIENCE. The consensus of geologists, climatologists, biologists, oceanographers and physicists (among others) is that this is REAL and that we’re causing it. The guy who founded the Weather Channel doesn’t stand up in the face of that. Come off it.

Now…I am busy this week. The end of the semester looms. And my free time is otherwise devoted to entertaining my charming and beloved children and preparing the sailboat for its annual Spring launch.

All the right wing cranks can commence to toss all their vitriol out about this… I frankly don’t care. Lies and distortions don’t change the facts.

And Mom–the methane thing–it’s a serious concern, but the likelihood of it happening is entirely unknown as far as I’m aware. I’d worry more about the more immediate concerns attached to global warming–how it affects crop growth, sea levels, and the health of coral reefs and the fish populations around the world.

124. bucslim - April 14th, 2008 at 8:42 am

Randall - Fine, you don’t believe a guy who’s been doing weather forecasts and has completely immersed himself in the debate. John Coleman does stand up in the debate, and has been invited to speak about the subject all over the world. No problem, there are other sources.

“There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state
governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by sub-
stituting statistics for physics. Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning.
Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other
extensive thermodynamic properties. Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes
in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics
because data alone are context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as
simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some
free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of admissible coordinate transformations
yields families of averaging rules that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data,
and by implication indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.
The physics provides no guidance as to which interpretation of the data is warranted.
Since arbitrary indexes are being used to measure a physically non-existent quantity, it is
not surprising that different formulae yield different results with no apparent way to select among them.
The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called
global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily ignored in the name of
the empirical study of climate. But nature is not obliged to respect our statistical conventions
and conceptual shortcuts. Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures
will continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these things for the human
experience of climate, until some physical basis is established for the meaningful measurement
of climate variables, if indeed that is even possible. It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out with some special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The burden rests with those
who calculate these statistics to prove their logic and value in terms of the governing dy-
namical equations, let alone the wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly
encountered.”

Taken from “Does Global Temperature Exist.” Essex, McKitrick and Andreesen - 2006 Journal of Thermodynamics

And you were alive back in the 70’s when *reputable* scientists were predicting another ice age.

125. bucslim - April 14th, 2008 at 8:44 am

-weather forecasts for 50 years that is.

126. chershey - April 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am

Global warming has nothing to do with humans. The earth goes through different processes naturally and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Anyone who thinks humans are capable of destroying this planet (with the except of with a nuclear bomb or something) is just plain ignorant. Sure, we’re breaking down *our* natural resources and making the air more dangerous for *us* to breathe, but who really thinks the planet itself won’t be here long after humans have died out?

127. Barack Obama - April 14th, 2008 at 10:08 am

Listen everyone: Forget whether it’s hot outside or cold, snowing or sunny. Global warming is based on the average temp worldwide on an annual basis, and you may be shocked at how steady this measure is from year to year and how the slightest change can have profound effects.

1 degree–just 1 degree change in this number is enough to change habitats and weather systems worldwide. A few more is enough to melt vast ice caps.

128. SlickWilly - April 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am

Alot of people didn’t realize that “Manbearpig” in the “Manbearpig” episode of South Park was supposed to be global warming. “You guuuuys! He’s totally real! I’m serial, so so serial, why won’t anyone listen to me!!”

129. Dhoser - April 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am

Bucslim - based on the quote you pasted, there is no practical way to determine the temperature of a large body at all…in effect you couldn’t even compare the temperature of the Sun to that of the Earth.

130. Dhoser - April 14th, 2008 at 10:29 am

chersey - No one is arguing that humanity is destroying the actual planet - the problem is what you yourself mention, whether we are making it unable to sustain us.

And as for global warming not having to do with us - again, no one is arguing that the planet doesn’t have temperature cycles - the problem is that it looks like the rise that we are currently experiencing is accelerating faster than the previous cycles.

If you wish to argue against human caused global warming, this is where you should do it, folks. Don’t argue that it isn’t happening or that human’s can’t possible affect the planet - those are old and easily refuted arguments that just make you look stooooooopid.

Pay attention to details, not soundbites, people.

131. Randall - April 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am

bucslim:

NO. I do not take the word of some guy just because he’s been “doing weather forecasts,” nor do I take it just because he’s “immersed himself in the debate.” Neither of these makes him a qualified scientist–nor is either of them a reason to take his *word* over that of qualified scientists. Why don’t YOU take the words of scientists about this—the thousands who agree it is a REAL phenomenon and that WE are contributing to it? Why do you *prefer* to take the word of a *tiny* minority instead?

Why? Because you don’t want to hear the truth. You’re clinging, again, to your outmoded and discredited politics from 20+ years ago. Again–ostrich with his head in the sand.

What about all the science that agrees this is real? The scientists who support it? They’re all wrong, I suppose. And only touting global warming because they’re “liberals,” right? Who are out to destroy our way of life?

PLEASE. Enough of the bullshit.

132. MplsBrad - April 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am

BASIC RULE OF LIFE: Actual peer-reviewed scientific data always trumps anecdotal or “gut feeling” or even “some guy said” evidence. There simply is no comparison. Deal with it.

133. Tonny SS - April 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Keep liberal and conservatives out of this. You guys acted like there aren’t Liberals and Moderates that are skeptics of Global Warming. I’m one.

134. Louis - April 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Randall — “consensus of geologists, climatologists, biologists, oceanographers and physicists (among others) is that this is REAL and that we’re causing it.”

I can’t speak for the other softer sciences, but physicists (and yes, I am a physicist) think the “science” behind global warming is a bunch of crap. There isn’t a single, strong argument for significant man-made global warming out there of which I am aware. Indeed, applying statistical mechanics to the earth-sun system indicates that somewhere between 60%-100% of the recent warming is due to the sun. And except for a few rare exceptions, geologists, climatologists, biologists, or oceanographers don’t understand or won’t touch statistics or stat mech given the less rigorous nature of their work. So no, I don’t care what all those other scientists say; the facts will speak for themselves, and right now the facts behind global warming aren’t there. I’m willing to be convinced, but you’ll have to make a solid case.

That isn’t to say that we’re not causing warming, we certainly are. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere guarantees we’re warming the earth. The big question which no person on earth knows the answer to is the magnitude of the temperature increase the CO2 will cause. If it’s 1/1000th of a degree/CO2 double, there’s no need to worry. If it’s 1*C/CO2 doubling, then there’s some worry and we need to make some changes, but it’s not the end of the world, either.

135. bucslim - April 14th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Randall, I just posted the WORD of THREE scientists, you ass. You didn’t want to believe the word of a guy who certainly knows more about the subject than you do, so I found some scientists to back it up. You’re the one braying it up with the sheep believing every damn word the media puts out. What’s worse is you’re completely deaf to anyone who has a different opinion than yours - on every subject I might add. And I wasn’t the one to bring up liberal or conservative. What the fuck does that matter when there is debatable scientific data out there?

I liked you better when you made sense.

136. Matt - April 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

bucslim: Wow…THREE scientists! I’m sure I could track down 3 historians who deny the holcaust took place. This however does not make it true.

137. Randall - April 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

bucslim:

Don’t call me an ass… not when YOU’RE the one denying global warming… IN THE FACE OF AN OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS WHO SAY IT’S REAL.

Matt made the perfect point about this. You cough up three global warming-deniers… we could cough up three holocaust deniers just as easily (excellently played and put, Matt). Would that convince you of anything?

I remind you that I ALWAYS MAKE SENSE, bucslim… so far I’ve seen one occasion after another where you FAIL to, however.

And no, I repeat… I WILL NOT take the word of some TV weatherman over the word of accredited and qualified and world-known scientists, who have published finding after finding supporting the theory that humankind is contributing to global warming.

What the hell is your problem with this? Clearly it’s politically motivated… you don’t want the “liberals” telling you that you can’t drive your gas-guzzling car or SUV anymore, or telling you that you can’t have your big house with its enormous carbon footprint… or whatever the hell your problem is. Again—something you’ve evinced on this site TIME AND TIME AGAIN—you evidently don’t give a damn about the rest of humanity or the earth itself—like all knee-jerk conservatives, you don’t want to take responsibility for these things, you just want to live your goddamned selfis