1516Views155Replies

Author Options:

He who says there's no such thing as global warming. Answered

Picture of

A friend of mine today firmly told me that there's no global warming and we should all stop trying to struggle improve efficiency (and then as an afterthought added "especially with policies, and liberalness and the such). It was a dumb inconsiderate reply but non the less, I snapped at him. I told him that we should just let ourselves cut down all the trees and pollute our atmosphere so much that marathon running would become a dangerous sport. He looked at me sheepishly and said something to the effect of well you shoulden't worry so much and Al Gore is a nutcase. Typical conservative catholic response. The point of telling you this story was to encourage you to say what you think in the comments section, and to inspire you to create ways to make us (the race of polluters) better. So go on, debate it up!

50 Replies

user
skunkbait (author)2008-06-20

Global warming- Real Man made- Doubt it (even though I'm sure we're not helping much) I'm pretty sure this is all part of a natural cycle. Does anyone remember "global cooling" back in the late70s early 80s?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)skunkbait2009-01-08

I completely agree with you. Nobody who is remotely intelligent denies Global Warming. The debate is over the cause.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
FaqMan (author)xACIDITYx2009-01-08

Ya but remember from the Campaign of 2008 Palin thought that global warming did not exist so some people believe that. But Global warming is being helped by human means and such just saying we all really need to cut down on fossil fuels and such.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)FaqMan2009-01-19

Ya but remember from the Campaign of 2008 Palin thought that global warming did not exist

Now THERE'S an authority to listen to. She had troubles with answering simple questions in a friendly interview.....I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her ;-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)Goodhart2009-01-19

. ROFLMAO To say something like that you must be a Male Chauvinist Pig. ;)
. Ms. Palin sure did a lot to re-inforce the Ditzy Broad sterotype. To get to where she is, she has to be reasonably smart, but she definitely comes across as clueless.
. Her accent didn't help, either.*

*This coming from a guy with a thick Southern Drawl. Howdy, y'all! heehee

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

There are other ways *winkwink* for women to make it ahead in politics (and yes I am a women so don't try and peg chauvinism on me).  And that aside, the unfortunate truth in our society is that a pretty face is going to get a women just as far as a good brain, especially in politics, which is just a form of acting anyway.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Hmmm, that DOES explain Palin for sure. Has anyone heard anything Lately from the Alaska State "Soccer Moms Against Palin" group?

She does some of the most interesting expose`s too: one news program she was "SAVING" one Thanksgiving turkey while one was being ruthlessly butchered in the background behind her IN FULL VIEW OF THE CAMERA.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)NachoMahma2009-01-19

ROFLMAO To say something like that you must be a Male Chauvinist Pig. ;)

Not at all, I know of some very intelligent and together females, she wasn't one of them. From what I saw, she was very consistent in saying one thing and saying the opposite later. She lied a lot. Numerous politicians get where there are by this manner.

She came across as clueless because, in the area she was thrust into, she was. She was coached and when a question came up that was outside her area of proficiency, she choked, badly.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)DuctTapeRules!2009-04-18

THIS

could have ended up being our president, had something happened to McCain if he had been elected:

Palin's greatest hits !


Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)FaqMan2009-01-08

That last part is your opinion or belief. Since there is no means to show that it solely us and not a natural cycle. I'm sure we're not helping the situation; I mean put billions of anything somewhere and the environment will change, but I don't personally believe that there is sufficient evidence to support it being solely a human negativity and not a naturally occurring cycle.

There is no negative in us helping the environment by any means and I actively encourage it. However, scare tactics to get people to do it isn't helping anyone. if you don't recycle, the entire earth will flame up and the devil himself will come up from hell and stab you with his pitchfork!!! isn't helpful.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)xACIDITYx2009-01-08

There are substantial and multiple ways to show that the magnitude of the current effect is far beyond anything observed in previous natural cycles, in the last several million years. Yes, this could be "just a large fluctation," (the last paper I read said it was about 4.5 sigma out) but the probability of such a fluctation being random is less than 10-5.

I've chosen that limit not to bias the comparison, but because it represents a range of time where the continental masses have been in basically their current configuration. If you look far enough in the past, you can find far more extreme climate variations during periods of single or dual supercontinents, or equatorial-only continental mass, which aren't comparable.

Worldwide dendrochronological (tree ring) studies can provide year-on-year climatic information going back up to 7,500 or 10,000 years (depending on location).

Greenland and antarctic ice cores can provide year-on-year precipitation and temperature (16O/18O ratio) measurements along with CO2 and trace gas compositions, going back as far as 500,000 years.

Marine stratigraphic information can provide temperature and ocean acidity data on a much coarser time scale, but going back millions of years.

I would recommend strongly that you use something like Google Scholar to look up some good review papers, and understand the evidence which has actually been published, before claiming it doesn't exist.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)kelseymh2009-01-09

Where did I ever claim it didn't exist? I said there's no way to substantially prove it's solely human's at fault and not a natural cycle. You even said so in your comment that it could be just a large fluctuation, which means that you don't (or can't) know for certain that we are 100% to blame.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)xACIDITYx2009-01-09

You're right. You claimed there was not "sufficient evidence to support". I have given you an outline of the manifold and complementary lines of sufficient evidence, and have encouraged you to gather some understanding for yourself of the primary research sources.

And you're also right that we can't know for 100% certain that we are to blame. We also can't know for 100% certain that you won't spontaneously explode before reaching the end of this sentence. However, we can say that the probabilty that the current warming cycle is not a natural, random fluctuation is at least 99.99% (conservatively).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)kelseymh2009-01-09

xD >Pictures skate6566 gunk all over the keyboard

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Lithium Rain2009-01-19

Aww, that's just not right.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
sane (author)kelseymh2009-01-11

We're actually in a cooling stage, and warming up. If that's what you're trying to say then I agree.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
zjharva (author)skunkbait2008-08-24

i wasn't alive in the 70s or 80s but i agree that it is just the earths warming and cooling cycles. but i still believe humans shouldn't pollute and use up every resource on the whole planet.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)zjharva2008-09-27

Pollution is never a good thing. I am a big fan of the rain forests. (I was actually involved in protecting the rain forest in New Guinea, by explaining the cost of "progress" to the elders/chiefs of several villages up in the mountains. A little money sounds great, till you realize your children will have nowhere to hunt and the springs will no longer contain safe drinking water!) I don't burn used tires for fun. I don't dump oil in the rivers. I use mostly steel shot when hunting. It's funny though that most of the people that shout the loudest about "global warming" aren't doing much on an individual level to "prevent it". It's easier to legislate other peoples' behavior, than it is to change your own!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
AnarchistAsian (author)skunkbait2008-09-27

lol, like people who buy hybrids and think that their share is done...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
zjharva (author)AnarchistAsian2008-09-28

hybrids and carbon credits......BLAH. hybrids could actually be worse because my thinking is that they get good gas milage, but those batteries require bad chemicals to produce and probably pollute more than normal cars (although doesn't everything including food have bad chemicals these days?) carbon credits are for those rich people driving their escalades just paying a bunch of money so they don't have to change at all, but then they can say they are "green"

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
AnarchistAsian (author)zjharva2008-09-28

my point exactly! do you watch southpark?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
zjharva (author)AnarchistAsian2008-09-28

no, do they say stuff like that on south park?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
AnarchistAsian (author)zjharva2008-09-28

they make fun of hybrid users. lol you should watch it, it's emmy-award-winning!!!!!!!!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
purduecer (author)AnarchistAsian2009-01-16

it's true, they're super serial :-P

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)skunkbait2009-01-08

The whole global cooling argument revolved around just one or two papers that the media grabbed and ran with. There was never any kind of scientific consensus about its "reality."

The consensus for anthropogenic climate change, and specifically warming, was already formed in the '60s, and the evidence has only gotten stronger and more detailed since then. See my comment to Skate below for some of the specifics.

I recommend looking up review articles on Google Scholar rather than trying to wade through hundreds of individual papers.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
AnarchistAsian (author)skunkbait2008-09-25

global cooling striked again... during the summer, there was a particularly cooler period, look it up... I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)AnarchistAsian2008-09-25

One figure does not break a trend.

Watch this space though, literally. The solar wind (blamed by the "it's a natural cycle" crowd) is at an unusual low, the lowest since records began in the early sixties. If GW is not anthropomorphic, then we should see a cooling trend that matches and follows the solar wind pattern (a cooling period that starts before the drop in solar wind would be merely coincidental).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
AnarchistAsian (author)Kiteman2008-09-25

whatever, the effects aren't so bad... *yet* oh, and a... *i hope*

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
littlechef37 (author)2009-01-16

Global warming = Real...

Considering the increase of odd weather (eg; more hurricanes, a snowstorm in Vancouver, melting ice caps) there ought to be something going on. However the increase in greenhouse gasses isn't completely caused by humans....(13% is actually cause by cows) The earth itself releases greenhouse gasses...

What worries me the most is the residue of tar sand production that is causing two headed fish too appear in lake Athabasca. All the waste from oil production is pumped into lakes and man made ponds (where birds try to swim) , once the water is filled with this greasy toxic substance we get mutated suffering animals.... Every time water is sucked out of these beautiful clean lakes used and put back, its ALWAYS dirtier, usually ALLOT dirtier. These beautiful lakes are becoming toxic wastelands.... Birds, fish are dieing, people who eat the birds and fish are getting cancers.....

Will your kids get to go fishing ?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

You bring up a good point, which is still valid to people who don't believe in global warming of climate change, or those who believe it is natural in origin. While I do believe in climate change, I can't say what the causes are, because I'm not a scientist. However, I can say that that pumping huge amounts of noxious gases into the atmosphere and the many oceanic oil spills that we never hear about throughout the year are a great reason to enact the policies that are put forth to prevent climate change.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
11010010110 (author)littlechef372009-01-16

a word about the cows - its humans that raise them in huge amounts to eat the cows or drink their milk

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)110100101102009-01-19

Still we could milk off the methane gas and use that too ;-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
littlechef37 (author)Goodhart2009-01-20

.... May I ask what for ?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)littlechef372009-01-20

What for, as in what are we using the Methane for? Heat, running vehicles, whatever :-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
littlechef37 (author)Goodhart2009-01-21

....So we just mount some type of tank to the cows ? ...or to prevent angry cows, keep them in some sort of GIANT dome that collects methane gas from the roof (as methane is lighter than air) ......any other methane "milking" methods ?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)littlechef372009-01-21

Hmm, to lessen the stress on the cows, maybe instead of tank, we could use sealed bags of some sort. They would inflate them as the day went on, and would be lighter then tanks :-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
littlechef37 (author)Goodhart2009-01-21

Thats not a bad idea but what about the solids ? LOL : )

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)littlechef372009-01-21

I believe something could be rigged to let the solids pass, and still bag the gas :-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
heat-seeker (author)2009-04-20

well what also starts this is a very high population that should be decreased but not how china dose it

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
purduecer (author)2009-01-16

Since I'm not going to wade through pages of comments, who's gonna bring up the impact of solar activity, which global warming enthusiasts seldom bring up. Also, I couldn't help but noticed we switched pop media terms from global warming to climate change...are the enthusiasts just covering all bases here because they don't actually know?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)purduecer2009-01-16

Solar activity is one of the reasons that the "obvious" trend in rising global-average temperatures over the past century isn't actually that obvious. There are substantial year-on-year fluctuations which, to the non-expert reader, obscure the significant long-term trend. Variations in solar output are a part, if a small part, of those fluctuations. One way to reduce the effect is to take multiyear averages.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
purduecer (author)kelseymh2009-01-17

Small, huh? Then what do the global warming fans conclude from the warming that also appears to be occurring on Mars? Would this not suggest a stronger role played by solar activity?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)purduecer2009-01-20

Here's a recent summary article showing the speciousness of the "solar variability" argument. I encourage you to actually read the primary research documents.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
purduecer (author)kelseymh2009-01-20

I'd love to, but I have to log in to access this article :-(

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)purduecer2009-01-20

Crap. Yeah, "mikey77" said the same thing, just much less politely. My apologies to you both, and Nacho, for the stupid misdirection. I didn't know about this; I'm guessing that SLAC has an institutional subscription (so when I posted the above from work, it didn't give me the login screen). When I'm at work tomorrow, I will use the page's "share this" link to get a freely accessible URL (and will test it off-site before posting).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer