Latest Climate Trends-Al G
- Started
- Last post
- 59 Responses
- zenmasterfoo0
^ let me be clear. the disagreement does not begin in that global warming is real. The disagreement is the cause. Because this is a political discussion and completely removed from the realm of scientific debate I have problems with it. I am doing my part very much to lower my consumption of energy and recycling to save the environment, but I have problems being told by politicians based on disputed scientific data the man is the sole cause of this issue.
- ukit0
I agree, take the politics out of it. But where are you getting the idea that there is a disagreement on the cause? From politicians and politically connected interests groups!
The scientific consensus is real on this. Here's some polling of actual climate scientists.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_re…
"A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. "
97% of climate scientists say human are causing it and you say there is a debate? The only ones who are skeptical are oil industry scientists and weathermen FFS!: - )
- Mimio0
Let's be clear. The same political parties, lobbyists and corporate interest organizations (think tanks, "institutes"..) who denied Global Warming was even occurring less than ten years ago are now the ones saying that they know for sure that people aren't causing it.
- Even the same groups opposing when the CFC laws were passed.Mimio
- ukit0
Have is a great article on how Exxon and other oil companies have spent tens of millions on trying to muddle the debate.
http://www.motherjones.com/envir…
Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.
EXXONMOBIL’S FUNDING OF THINK TANKS hardly compares with its lobbying expenditures—$55 million over the past six years, according to the Center for Public Integrity. And neither figure takes much of a bite out of the company’s net earnings—$25.3 billion last year. Nevertheless, “ideas lobbying” can have a powerful public policy effect.
Consider attacks by friends of ExxonMobil on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). A landmark international study that combined the work of some 300 scientists...Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) was so troubled by the report that he called for a Senate hearing.
Industry defenders shelled the study, and, with a dearth of science to marshal to their side, used opinion pieces and press releases instead. “Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice,” blared FoxNews.com columnist Steven Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute ($75,000 from ExxonMobil)...
TechCentralStation.com ($95,000 from ExxonMobil) published a letter to Senator McCain from 11 “climate experts,” who asserted that recent Arctic warming was not at all unusual in comparison to “natural variability in centuries past.” Meanwhile, the conservative George C. Marshall Institute ($310,000 from Exxon) issued a press release asserting that the Arctic report was based on “unvalidated climate models and scenarios...that bear little resemblance to reality and how the future is likely to evolve.”
In response, McCain said, “General Marshall was a great American. I think he might be very embarrassed to know that his name was being used in this disgraceful fashion.”
- Does this surprise you? surely they have their interest to protect. While I agree it's shady, it doesn't lend any more credit to your side.designbot
- your side. There is more information out there than this "propaganda" that you claim Big Oil creatd.designbot
- No, it doesn't surprise me, what surprises me is that they have been so successful that they have people copying and pasting their talking pointsukit
- pasting their talking points to defend a completely indefensible argumentukit
- Dude, I could say the same for you. Why do you suppose all the propaganda is one-sided?designbot
- What if your the sheep and they are herding you into this lie? Just saying....designbot
- designbot0
^And the same guy (Al Gore) who was screaming IN THE 90'S catastrophic consequences would occur in 10 YEARS if nothing was done about carbon pollution...is still screaming the same propaganda in 2009.
- zenmasterfoo0
For the longest time, debates like this resided entirely in the scientific forum. This is different. Here's a good read o the varying positions on a wide range of scientific information:
- designbot0
^ And what happens in another say 30 years? What if cooling occurs, then what? What if it's natural?
- ukit0
^ Yeah, what if aliens fucking land and beam us into the future. I guess you're right, anything could happen, the question is why are you so determined not to believe something that practically every climate scientist agrees is real and a huge problem.
- You're missing it. We believe. Just not in the cause being human only.zenmasterfoo
- zenmasterfoo0
The idea that this is a returning cycle in the earth's history has validity in many scientific circles. That it's an issue to be dealt with is certain. That if not dealt with now, this year, as Al Gore says, is up for serious debate. Maybe his heart and motivation is all in it's proper selfless place. I doubt that.
- designbot0
Because something like 97% of all carbon pollution happen naturally. In other words, if humans ceased to exist....97% of your so called problem would still exist. It's really ludicrous to me that people like Al Gore and others think the apocalypse will occur without immediate human intervention. Even if the entire world could get on board overnight, we would have little to NO impact with our collective efforts.
- designbot0
Anyways respect ukit (and low), I know we disagree on a lot, but thanks for keeping it civil.
I'm off to lunch.
- ukit0
Well thank you designbot but in terms of what you said above -
Basic science can easily show why you are wrong. That 97% of carbon "pollution" that is naturally produced by plants and animals is reabsorbed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis. It's part of the natural carbon cycle of the Earth. The 3-5% produced by humans is NOT reabsorbed. And we are actively destroying huge tracts of land such as the Amazon rainforest that play an important role in keeping the balance.
To make a real world analogy, suppose I dump 100 tons of garbage into my front yard every week. 97 tons are taken away by the garbage man. Now according to what you are saying, I don't have a problem under that scenario.
BTW, this is what I mean when I say the industry groups are out there spreading BS arguments which people then repeat. It's the same thing that tobacco companies did back in the 70s and 80s.
- bogue0
No matter what human's impact actually is on climate change I think that taking any kind of initiative to curb our consumption patterns, individually and collectively will be positive. We need to find new ways to support the ecosystem's that have supported us for so many thousand's of years. Human life might not be a permanent thing on earth, but it seems plainly obvious that we have the intellect and technology to make prolong our time here.
- for develloped country, 3rd wolrld country will suffer most as usual...GeorgesII
- Corvo20
Where the hell is An-arteedah?
- ukit0
Also keep in mind that a list of a few dozen crackpot scientists willing to sign on to your POV doesn't mean jack - you can find a group of "scientists" willing to say anything - look no further than the Flat Earth Society ("Deprogramming the masses since 1547")
- bogue0
Arguing over the semantics and causes of climate change is pointless procrastination. Finding a better way to live on this planet is what we should be focusing on.
- Scotch_Roman0
"al gore is not a scientist." —johndiggity
- GeorgesII0
yeah, lets save the earth.
* jumps in hummer to walk dog
- Corvo20
If you can do what's better for the environment (and there is knowledge and technology to do this) it needs to be done on principle. Global warming being true or not, the goal of science is to improve our lives and that of anything around us.
