Hey, you environmentalists on the east coast....
Member since 2009 · 827 posts · 245 votes
.....howse that "Global Warming" theory workin fer ye? Are those darn "deniers" giving you a hard time now?
They were talking about it today on that dreaded cable news network all the high school dropouts and rednecks watch.
TC
How does Liberal and Conservative come into a conversation about climate change? The earth's climate is ALWAYS CHANGING. Not only does the earth spin on it's axis and orbit the sun, it also wobbles and wiggles, vibrates and hums. The sun is also changing, creating energy through nuclear fusion near it's core. Our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, is extremely dynamic, ever moving, ever expanding, ever changing. Nothing is stable or constant. Thus our climate is always changing as well.
The damage that man is doing to planet earth is not harming the planet nearly so much as it is harming man himself. Once man is gone from the earth, it won't take long (relatively speaking) for the earth to cleanse itself of most of the evidence that man was here.
The reason we need to take care of the earth is not for earth's sake, but for OUR SAKE.
Florida is in the 20's and 30's at night right now. If Global Warming exists, can someone remind it to come back to my area? I miss wearing flip flops!
No seriously, wasnt there really some propaganda back in the day about Global Cooling?
The Bible says "And God said let there be light and there was light." If God can create with just his spoken word, not too much work or design in it. After all, He is God.
As to your questions John C, God created the dinosaurs and they are gone now, why should man be any different? It is only man's arrogance that makes him think he is better than any other creature.
Bryan,
Tom now realizes that this thread made him look ignorant and uneducated, and he's not really sure what to do to save face other than to start acting weird...
This is Tom's equivalent to a three-year-old cupping his ears and yelling, "AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH ... I CAN'T HEAR YOU ..... AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH..."
Tom - Unfortunately, your ploy didn't work...you now look uneducated *AND* weird...
The damage that man is doing to planet earth is not harming the planet nearly so much as it is harming man himself. Once man is gone from the earth, it won't take long (relatively speaking) for the earth to cleanse itself of most of the evidence that man was here.
The reason we need to take care of the earth is not for earth's sake, but for OUR SAKE.
Climate is always changing. Correct. Punctuated change is not always happening. When the dinosaurs went extinct it was due to a punctuated climate change from a meteor impact that released dust and debris that blocked the sun.
Releasing billions of years worth of accumulated carbon into the atmosphere in a 100 years(a blink of an eye in geologic time) is likely going to change the climate at a rate that differs from the traditional climate change rate. Experts can make educated predictions at what might happen, just like a neurosurgeon can predict what likely will happen when he removes a brain tumor from one of his patients. But expecting a 100% accuracy in these predictions is unrealistic when things as complex like climate or the human body is involved.
If your loved one has a brain tumor removed and has unexpected complications, who do you turn to to guide you through the crisis? The neurosurgeon who did the surgery, his colleagues, another neurosurgeon, or a talking head on fox news?
Global Warming and Climate Change are the same exact things, just with different names...again, names were changed due to the misconception that Global Warming was specifically induced by man-made processes, even though that wasn't inherent in most scientific discussions about the topic...
So, how exactly is Climate Change a hoax?
Again, most scientists on all sides of the political spectrum generally believe that the earth is going through a warming period, regardless of whether the change is induced by man-made processes or not.
I think saying that humans are the reason for climate change is like saying that humans are the reason for economic cycles... You can make it as obvious as you would like, and the majority of the people ignore it, and then look back saying what they "should have done". The housing bubble burst, and everyone looks back and points fingers saying, "I told you that was going to happen". I think everyone can agree that the climate didn't start changing 6 months after Gore put out his movie. However, everyone watches his movie and says, " I told you so". When someone finds a definite answer on how to solve the problem, if it is a problem and not just a cycle, I'd be happy to help. Until then, I'll just let the people on the news tell me what a terrible person I am for driving a car...I'm sure Gore and his rich friends are car pooling their private jets, right?
I don't think there is really much to debate about the existence of global warming. It is simply a fact that can be measured and has been measured. It is not worth our time and energy debating with the lunatic fringe that wants to deny fairly clear scientific evidence.
The causes of global warming can be many. As some have pointed out, there is the inherent variability in the earth's climate that has been evident throughout history. But a preponderance of scientists believe that the rate of change is higher over the last few decades than it has been in the past and believe that greenhouse gases are one significant contributor to it. The proportion of scientists who support this hypothesis is increasing by the day. Obviously, that does not mean that it is a proven fact, but it does mean that it is the best explanation available to us today and the one that we should consider more likely than any other.
To me, the more interesting question is what to do about it. The obvious solution would be to reduce greenhouse gases but that is hard to do because so much of our economic development and growth have come through the emission of such gases. Furthermore, large emerging economies such as India and China have yet to become developed economies and they are not likely to be willing to cap their emissions at current levels. Since they will, over time, become the dominant greenhouse gas emitters, an agreement without them makes little sense.
Finally, any final agreement has to use market mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gases instead of regulation and quotas.
Is it likely that one would deny the national housing price decline because they live in an insulated pocket of the market that has only seen flat-line price changes or even some appreciation?
Would one then post, "Hey all you unemployed, forclosure crybabies! Hows that dang housing crisis for ya? Bet those economic talking heads giving you a hard time now!"
Cataclysmic events can cause swift changes, but over all, changes happen over long periods of time. Man needs to to learn how to live with these changes, not try to stop them or change them.
There are a lot of things that man needs to stop doing, and start doing, to make the earth a better place to live. It is our home and we can make it a clean home or a filthy home. But for us to think that we have some kind of power to control climate, we are only fooling ourselves.
Tom -
Every major national and international scientific body disagrees with you.
Given that I assume you haven't looked at the data yourself, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have no support for that claim, and therefore it's probably safe to say that you're absolutely wrong.
I'm not sure why you believe climate change science is a hoax, but perhaps you've been watching too much Fox News, which clearly doesn't really care about the science, only about doing what executives tell them to do, regardless of the facts:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004
If you're claim is based on "ClimateGate," keep in mind that even if data were fabricated by some rogue scientists, that doesn't undermine the real data that indicates the same result. And if that's your big argument, consider that using that reasoning, someone could say that if the Shroud of Turin is proven fake, then it is proof that Jesus never lived; I'm pretty sure religious folks would find fault in that logic.
So, you can continue to listen to Fox News (which I remind you has gone to court to fight for their right to lie to their viewers) or you can listen to experts in the field. But as long as you're getting your science from Fox News, you should expect to not have any idea what you're talking about.
Oh...and always remember what Socrates (and a hundred other famous people) have said: "It's better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."
I am quite convinced that the scientists could tell you the world would end next month and you would call it a "hoax" if Fox News told you to....right Tom!
Bryan,
Over the years, scientists have told us the world is flat, that the human body would explode if it went faster than sixty miles per hour, that bleeding a sick body would make it heal, and on and on. Of course they were proven wrong.
There was great line in the movie "The Prestige" said by Tesla, "The problem with exact science is that it is not exact!". Science is all about discovery, proving and disproving previous theories.
In the 1970's, scientists warned us about Global Cooling. All of a sudden, it is now Global Warming. Why not just admit that the climate is dynamic and always fluctuating? Man is no more causing current climate fluctuations today than man caused climate fluctuations fifty million years ago. Volcanoes, huge forest fires, meteor impacts, tsunamis, etc... Have a far more severe impact on earth than man ever will, yet the earth is still here. The earth will still be here long after man is gone. Our goal is to do our best to live within the parameters the earth gives us. This will allow us to last as long as possible.
Mike, it is true that scientists do not know everything. If they did, we would no longer be able to have discoveries. It is also true that scientists have been quite wrong in the past. That will continue to be the case, although modern scientists are trained to be less dogmatic than the "scientists" from midieval times.
The question for us is how we wish to form our opinions about things. Do we wish to form opinions that are consistent with the judgment of experts in a field, or do we wish to form our opinions based on our personal feelings or that of a TV talk show host?
While it is possible that the talk show host can be right and the experts wrong, the probability of that being the case is lower than that of the opposite. I like to form my opinions (and business decisions) based on the most likely outcomes instead of the least likely ones.
@Mike:
Again...I'm not in either camp. I think it is highly possible that there is more than one thing contributing to the effects and that man-made emissions may not be the ONLY cause. I don't know enough about the science to comment intelligently. I do, however, know enough about who started this thread to know that much of what is claimed is baseless.
Scientists are certainly wrong about things. However, if there was no scientific method and people just listened to Fox News for their education on subjects it would be a fairly simple world. I work on extremely complicated engineering projects daily so I know all about human error and how to correct for it. A world full of scientists all singing the same tune is pretty damning evidence to me. Others choose to get their scientific data from the magical TV box and that is fine.
Assuming that we do have global warming there really are no good cures for it that don't involve drastic lifestyle changes.
From the research I've done, it appears that the only way to be a climate expert in this country is through the governement. If this is not correct I am open to supportive information. This severely taints the "expert" pool of scientists. This means that politics is automatically injected into the science. This also means that there is a LOT of money involved in agreeing with people such as Al Gore. Other countries not connected to our governement (such as Russia for example) do not agree with the man made global warming stance that our country takes.
You're right Paul. The whole man made global warming debate is based on computer modeling because the natural data just isn't there.
Like almost all of progressive liberalism, man made global warming only works when you make crap up.
So is the stance that it is not Man Made but still an issue or unknow cause? Or is it a non issue all together, that is, no such thing as climate change, or a warming trend.
I think the issue here is that the OP believes that is does not exist at all, regardless on whose stance it is. Especially since you quoted those crazy commies! What do they know about science, they can't even get gov-mint right.
I digress.
The planet is in a warming trend, and will innevitably enter into another ice age - the question is not if it's happening but when.
Well I guess using this "logic" the current operations data for a rental property are of no consequence either. The building is 100 years old, but we are going to discard the last 10 years of data because we need all 100 for it to be accurate.
I guess those actuarial models in the insurance industry are worthless too. Allstate is sure to just say f-it...we'll just watch the babbling talking heads on Fox News to see what their latest drug addict says about how to run that business. The science is no longer important...we'll just root around in thare wit a stik and see what cumes up...that is how we'll figure out how to run our business from now on!
If all of this fails maybe we can just see if the temperature dropped 20 plus degrees in the last week or so. That will be compelling evidence that there is no global warming! :roll:
Did I hear a liberal fly somewhere buzz the word "actuarial models"? I'll forgo the fact that there's 5 times the history of data in actuarial science as there is in the data used to make these global warming claims and ask if this is the same liberal fly that supported Obama-care which supports the philosophy of "covering a pre-existing condition", the most stupid, blatant, uninformed, nonsense assault on one of the most basic principles of actuarial science that any private or public executive has ever perpetrated?
Can't be. That must have just been my ear buzzing. No one would let themselves step into that.
I don't know the first thing about "Obamacare" or its consequences. I don't like the gov-mint goofing with healthcare at all...despite your baseless liberal labels that you love to throw around.
I do know something about statistics though. To claim that 100 years of data is completely meaningless and that the other data collected using techniques to view what happened in that past is dumb...every bit as dumb as claiming that 10 years of operations data on an apartment building is meaningless.
Just believe the hoax and pay the damn tax!
Be a team player!
TC
Yeah, it would be the patriotic thing to do wouldn't it?