Latest Climate Trends-Al G
- Started
- Last post
- 59 Responses
- Scotch_Roman0
I don't think debating the cause of climate change is a wasted debate, because depending on the answer, it's either our fault to some degree, or it isn't; and this has a direct bearing on whether it's good or bad for governments to be dumping scatzillions of dollars into research on what we can do to fix it. Because if there's nothing we can do to stop global warming, then we should keep our tax money.
Granted, regardless of what one believes about the causes of global warming, being a good environmental steward is no less important than it's ever been.
Mimio, you mentioned that it's only Republicans who are saying climate change is out of our hands. That isn't true. The BBC did a very thorough documentary a couple years back on the subject, bolstered by research from scientists who are not in the pocket of any political organization. Unfortunately, this group has been shouted down and the video is nowhere to be found. Sad, because it was 1.5 hours worth of brilliance that I think anyone who cares about our planet at all should have watched, whilst taking notes.
- Mimio0
^I've seen it. It was just broadcast by the BBC. I don't believe they produced it. Regardless, they trotted out people like Timothy Ball to make their case.
- You're talking about "The Great Global Warming Swindle" right?Mimio
- http://www.channel4.…Mimio
- lowimpakt0
@ zenmasterfoo
Just so you know that OISM peition you linked to has been shown on many occasions to be unverifyable and make up of lots of junk
e.g.
In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[21] ”In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency
- lowimpakt0
@ designbot "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."
i suggest you take a basic course in ecology - start understanding terms like carrying capacity, natrual systems etc.
- designbot0
@ukit "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."
False. The Oceans alone are said to absorb HALF of Human C02 emissions.
- http://www.guardian.…Mimio
- So it's absorbing less, that may be agreed upon. What Ukit said is still not true, which was my point.designbot
- http://www.skeptical…Mimio
- lol!! I was just reading that article. Again though, how do you think this negates what I said?designbot
- DrBombay0
Everytime I see this argument, the conservative side is basically defending pollution.
It's funny shit.
- And the conservative side somehow ends up in opposition to the scientific consensus...kinda weirdukit
- Okay I know Dr.B knows but let me reiterate in case there is any confusion...I am by no stretch of the imagination a republican.designbot
- Or sorry "conservative" although I lean towards the conservative side on several issues. I am not hard headed enough to think I have all the answers.designbot
- I have all the answers. I stay in the middle on some topics and eventually find my way to one side or the other.designbot
- ukit0
designbot, it's true that some human-produced CO2 is reabsorbed, but the point is that it's not a neutral process as with plants and animals. Human activity upset the equilibrium of the carbon cycle causing accumulation of excess CO2 over time.
In other words, your original statement (how could humans have an effect when plants and animals emit 95% of the CO2?) doesn't hold up or even make sense.
- lowimpakt0
@ DB "What is your background? (Education-wise)"
many years ago - Honours degree in Industrial Design (two majors in sustainability topics)
a good few years ago - Msc Sustainable Development (including ecology, environmental economics, systems analysis, environmental law)
and I am currently 3 1/2 years into a part time PhD addressing the interface between national and regional innovation systems, design practice and sustainable development.my day job involves working with businesses and policy makers on sustainable design (products and services). plus loads of other things.
my point about you taking a course in ecology wasn't a dig. I think you would get a lot out of it because you have an inquisitive mind. I just get really frustrated when people can't seem to seperate good information (i.e. peer reviewed, verifyable, rigorous etc) from bad (unreferenced, poorly researched, obviously biased)
- Impressive, and this def. lends credibility to your view in my eyes...which is exactly why I asked :)designbot
- designbot0
Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change," he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information."
Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.
- alabama, huh?DrBombay
- just kidding but that is like the second stupidest state in the union.DrBombay
- Sorry, but you can find a scientist here or there who will say anything - look at the total numbersukit
- The fact that you can't link to a credible, mainstream survey showing a majority of scientists doubt global warming is pretty tellingukit
- ukit0
I would say that unfortunately it's a product of the new media.
The fact that there are now so many channels for information mean that people with an axe to grind (cough, energy industry, cough cough) can direct misinformation through media outlets that are read by people with certain ideologies.
I don't know how else to explain the disconnect between what mainstream scientists believe and the seemingly firmly held beliefs of pretty much *every* conservative that global warming is a load of BS. It really does split pretty evenly down ideological lines, very strange for a debate that should be grounded in science.
And you guys are expecting me to believe that 60-some million Exxon spent on media and lobbying had no impact, huh?
- designbot0
Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming.
Interesting fact.
- ukit0
So? I'm sure much more has been spent on cancer research, does that mean cancer isn't real?
- no but it poses an interesting angle...like with all the money spent what do you suppose would happen if the evidence showed global warming was not caused by man?designbot
- showed humans had no effect on global warming? If they came out with this info....bye bye funding.designbot
- So 97% of scientists are falsifying their research to get research grants. Give me a break!:Dukit
- I mean, at some point, you have to ask yourself why you are going to such lengths to argue your side of this.ukit
- I don't think so. Human caused or not the research would still need to be conducted.Mimio
- okay, okay, I'll admit this may be far-fetched....relax :)designbot
- GeorgesII0
everytime I see this debate, I think most of you don't realise if we're in this shit right now, its mostly our fault. I used to be a lot into wwf until I realized its all bullshit and they don't actually do a thing to solve the real issues. can we save the planet and ignore the fact that doing so we will condemn to death billion of person. we should be having a real debate about why the big oil company constantly suppressed the study for clean energy, why every reasearcher that tried to an independant study in this matter was either shutdown or blackmail to death. this debate is important because we should always take care of this planet. but we can not do it without having a real solution or plan.
- designbot0
"The views shown here are my personal ones. They were developed by my independent review of the literature and data regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
It is not obvious what the ideal temperature and CO2 level should be for mankind. We tend to assume that the average of whatever has occurred in the recent past is the ideal level, since we have adjusted to that level, and changes from that level can cause disruptions in living conditions and activities. There is no argument that there have been significant temperature and CO2 (and Methane) increases in recent years. The issue is whether these were possibly related and were due to human activity, and whether this is a potentially significant problem.
It is clear that we get excited at anything different that happens in a time period that spans a large fraction of a lifetime, even if it is not unusual compared to time periods more distant in the past. In order to examine the AGW claims, temperature data covering the last several thousand years was examined for widely separated ice core and ocean sediment core sources. Conclusions from these curves are that the temperature goes up and down 1.50C to 20C about every thousand years. The present increase is not higher than several other times in the period examined, and the speed of change is typical. Curves can be seen at: While we clearly have recently experienced a period of warming, the last several years have actually been dropping! There is no indication that the period of warming was unusual based on comparison over a reasonable time scale! If the present were unusual, then all previous times of rapid change and high levels would also have to be unusual, and where is the anthropogenic causes for those times?
In order to prove a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions and conclusions are shown: . It has become quite clear to the author that the AGW theory is flawed. Human produced greenhouse gases almost certainly have affected the global temperature somewhat, but the evidence clearly shows that contribution is small compared to natural causes, and not a problem."
- -Dr. Leonard Weinstein
worked 45 years at the NASA Langley Research Centerdesignbot
- -Dr. Leonard Weinstein
- TheBlueOne0
I'm staying mostly out of this, because I have too much to do this afternoon, but this is a good listen (mp3):
http://www.electricpolitics.com/…
Interview with this woman: http://www.science.ku.dk/fakulte…
- ********0
Yeah, we have absolutely no impact on our planet. Come swim at some of the beaches in Southern California. (insert sarcasm anywhere)
- I don't believe that. no one should, no matter their politics.zenmasterfoo
- I don't believe that either...and I've been to your beaches bro :-)designbot
- did you wear your biohazard suit? :)********
- yeah , I hear you. I just know people who are totally oblivious and are laa-dee-daa about everything.********
- no way man, I live in Colorado...naturally I love nature/hiking.designbot
- I love that place. You have it made!********
- It is great. I live really close to the mountains which is awesome. If your into being outdoors it's one of the best places to live.designbot
- identity0
This is a design blog. If this were a critique about the We/Me logo, that would be one thing. Stop arguing over the internet.
- it's a blog?DrBombay
- :-) have a nice dayidentity
- there goes the NSFW post.zenmasterfoo
- LOL - you're right... continue this thread!identity
- you're new here aren't you.********
- ;)********
- haha - i wish. I wonder if scientists have indepth discussions about typography?identity
- where is Rand by the way?********
- on a shrinking polar ice-cap... fighting polar bears with his bare-hands to remain on the iceidentity
