Global Warming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

They try, but all of their arguments are scientifically inaccurate or straight-out lies. We had an interesting court case here recently when a denial group took on the crown climate institute and lost. They could not back up their arguments.

---

Something similar happened with intelligent design a little while ago in Pennsylvania. Some parents sued when a school board tried to introduce intelligent design into science classes, and after a trial, the judge not only ruled against the IDers based on "overwhelming evidence", but also blasted them for "time and again lie[ing] to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose" behind the intelligent design policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Unfortunately, Al Gore probably did more harm than good, because he used inaccurate information and scare tactics instead of straight facts. Facts aren't sexy enough.

---

Michael Moore has the same problem. He exaggerates and lies outright because he's "right", and therefore it's justified. But not when the other guys do it, even though they are mostly thinking exactly the same way. Thus the public ignores everyone because they can't actually trust anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

Something similar happened with intelligent design a little while ago in Pennsylvania.

---

Excellent analogy, starting with calling evolution "a theory" in a manner that suggests it's not real science.

Your sig is saying the same thing, as I'm sure you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

Michael Moore has the same problem. He exaggerates and lies outright because he's "right", and therefore it's justified. But not when the other guys do it, even though they are mostly thinking exactly the same way. Thus the public ignores everyone because they can't actually trust anyone.

---

Another excellent example. Seth MacFarlane once had a superb episode of Family Guy, where Moore takes off his outer skin, only to be Rush Limbaugh underneath, then another Moore under that, and so on.

Just to go to advance planning again, I have a classic example happening outside our house right now, as the city council is paying for an upgrade to the area's water supply.

This is in Auckland, one of the western world's fastest-growing cities. Ten years ago, this area had no houses at all on the land, being a mix of swamp & farnland. At that time, the city planners had budgeted for a further 100,000 residents in the area over the next 25 years.

So, what do they do for water supply? INstall enough for 50,000 residents in the safe knowledge that it would do for now and be a problem for someone else to fix at a later date. Right now, they are digging up roads & footpaths to install the upgrade, creating needless expenditure in the millions of dollars.

With that kind of attitude prevailing in officialdom, what chance is there that they'll ever act on something that is a couple of centuries in the future?

As I keep saying, the problem with that approach is that there is starting to be a consensus that there will come a time in global warming where it is irreversible. Nobody knows when that will be, or what level of CO2/methane it sits at, but it's there somewhere.

Won't bother the cockroaches.

From a strictly personal standpoint, this winter is similiar to those we suffered through when I was a kid. There were mitigating factors back then -- we heated with a highly-inefficient coal-burning furnace, we didn't have high-tech outer garments, little was known about insulation, etc., and nobody ever heard the term "wind chill factor." Even so, it was downright cold. The summers, as well, were sweltering, just as the last 10 or 15 summers have been. 2013 was one of the hottest summers on record.

One thing we didn't have back then -- and what we have today at an alarming rate is melting glaciers. Polar bears in the Arctic are rapidly losing their habitat. Other species, especially cold-water fish and other forms of marine life, are diminishing in numbers. The videos from Alaska, Greenland, the Himalayas are thorougly frightening, as are the data which researchers have found from taking "core samples" from the Antarctic ice shelf.

The term "global warming" is a misnomer, although increased oceanic temperatures are certainly a factor. "Climate change" is more accurate, since an undeniable clue is the frequency and intensity of storms and droughts.

Greenhouse gases from a little more than a century of burning fossil fuels is a prime culprit.
Another factor is methane, produced in the waste products of animals raised for food. Clearing of the rain forests for construction and development vastly diminishes the production of oxygen, which is a natural by-product of photosynthesis in plants. All of these destructive activities are of course man-made.

But what difference does the cause make? It is imperative that the world --led by the industrialized West-- take positive steps to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The United States should be a leader in this effort, but political and especially corporate pressure has made progress toward this aim sluggish and half-hearted.

Even if climate change is -- as some like to believe--not man-made-- if we make some inroads against pollution, at least the world's population can have hope of breathing cleaner air.

Actually yes Aunty made a good point there, the label 'global warming' has been an unfortunate word slip of the scientific community. I'm sure we have all heard someone mutter in the cold weather 'what about all of this global warming nonsense?' or playfully announce 'we could do with some of that global warming right now...'

Yes I agree Atheist, people and companies are extremely short sighted and as usual profit is the driving factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I don't know what to think and I think much of that comes from the endless spin on this topic. There are some good links provided in this thread and opinion that global warming/climate change is linked to human activity, but then I wonder if the naysayers could also provide links to prove it is not?

I watched and remember the Al Gore video several years ago. Then I saw the reaction links to the Al Gore video criticising his conclusions. Then you had the reaction to the reaction of the Al Gore video etc, etc, you see what I am saying, then it all just becomes a roundabout...and this is just one example I am giving. The whole issue seems full of reaction and counter-reaction and in the end I don't really know what to believe any more.

---

I have a similar problem. Basically I believe the climate scientists, but to a degree it is on trust. I cannot entirely understand the science because I have not the training, the intelligence or the time. Scientists have been pretty consistent about the danger since the late 80s, when I first remember hearing about it. However, when I look out the window, I cannot help wondering where the desert is, whether somehow a mistake has been made, or whether it could not all be some giant conspiracy. I found it easier to believe when we had a run of about a dozen mild winters when it never snowed or really got cold, but then we had three cold winters with a lot of snow. Right now half the country is under water, but next year it will probably be back to normal. Certainly I believe CO2 is a green house gas, but I could not say how much extra CO2 in the atmosphere would have what effect on the climate. Every explanation I have seen has been slightly inadequate or a simplification that raises more questions. However, based on the uncertainty, I would do what climate scientists have done: a) form a committee of world experts to review and collate the scientific evidence, b) look for evidence in the geological record to check how the climate has changed with CO2, and c) write some computer climate models, test them with historical data and see whether they agree about the future. Computer model wise, it is basically a massive fluid mechanics problem with a lot of extra physics, over a very wide area and over a long period of time.

I tend to go the other way and prefer "global warming" to "climate change" - and I know I'm at odds with the scientific community on it - because the problem is not so much the climate changing, but the globe warming up.

Yes, some places will be colder, notably UK, but the average temperature of the planet and oceans is increasing and that's what will cause all the problems.

I don't see any real advantage in one name over another, because even climate change opens the door for people predicting another ice age, as happened as recently as last month: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...es-plunge.html

The label doesn't matter in itself, but to the general public the term 'global warming' doesn't make any sense if faced with record freezing temperatures that month or season. The science may mean that GW/CC does mean that some places will be colder as a result, but most people are not going to read into that and the term just doesn't match what many people may be experiencing. So if scientists/environmentalists are trying to convince people of this issue the term is somewhat counter-productive.

'Climate change' may not be perfect either, but my guess is it is a better general fit than global warming. It is an issue though that undoubtedly the climate changes significantly without human activity...though not to say human activity hasn't impacted negatively...really you see, it just feels a bit of a confused mess, like the rainforests that were going to disappear in ten years, twenty-five years ago. People cannot trust the science or the way it is spun. That article you posted for example uses scientific backing "Scientists warn the Sun has 'gone to sleep'" so is that true as well? My point of course is that people just do not know what to believe any more and you can't really blame them. It is all a bit 'the boy who cried wolf' I fear, but all the same, we know what happened to him!

There is a lot of research going on that addresses various aspects of the problem - carbon sequestration and carbon sinks, development of all sorts of alternative energy sources (nuclear reactors are touted in some quarters, but they scare me more than increasing CO2 emissions), smart grids, etc., etc., but one low tech and effective method is simply to plant more trees/green leafy plants. Trees are natural carbon sinks that absorb CO2, emit oxygen, and provide other useful products, as well. For sure, more trees are not the only solution, but they can help mitigate the problem. The ultimate solution will be some mixture of alternative non-fossil energy sources. As much as I have been involved in the issue over the years (I've done some work on the government policy side) it always surprises me that the simple idea of planting trees is so often left out of the equation.

Excellent piece in today's Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-us-lord-stern

Noting something not mentioned in the thread yet - the danger of methane escaping from thawing permafrost. No doubt it's going to happen, and nobody knows quite how much methane might be released, other than "a lot".

Yes good article, I read it when you posted it earlier. Just watching the news currently pretty unbelievable stuff - it feels like half of England is under water...and storms and more rain on the way tomorrow.