The reality of climate change can no longer be ignored

[marano]

When I was a child we had winters that lasted months. I had to completely break ice from my dogs water dish every day for months so I could put water in for them to drink every morning before I went to school. Every day for months as a kid we would slide around on solid ice in ditches for fun. For the last fifteen years mudholes here barely freeze and summers get longer and winters get shorter. For the last three years I have not had to wear a jacket once. I like jackets. As I type this it is 66 degrees where I stand. I am wearing a short sleeve shirt. Twenty years ago I would be wearing thermal underwear and a winter coat.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by marano

When I was a child we had winters that lasted months. I had to completely break ice from my dogs water dish every day for months so I could put water in for them to drink every morning before I went to school. Every day for months as a kid we would slide around on solid ice in ditches for fun. For the last fifteen years mudholes here barely freeze and summers get longer and winters get shorter. For the last three years I have not had to wear a jacket once. I like jackets. As I type this it is 66 degrees where I stand. I am wearing a short sleeve shirt. Twenty years ago I would be wearing thermal underwear and a winter coat.

Sure guy. Alabama had one of its coldest winters ever 2 years ago.

http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=27276

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by marano

I like jackets.

How do you feel about turtles?

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Axil

Unbiased observers don't exist.


I believe that atmospheric temperatures recorded by weather balloons has declined for the past ten years. I don't think anyone disputes that fact. Those who still consider global warming a reality have ways to explain that away. Those who believe the warming process has become to reverse don't buy those explanations.

I'm not going to present the argument for you. Do you deny atmospheric temperatures have declined since 2000? If not, why do you believe global warming is still an issue. Please note that an appeal to authority is not a logically sound way to argue a premise. Give me your opinion on the facts in evidence.

Evidence?

How about the reading evidence in the article I posted above?

As for Bias d'you think the 3 Generals who co-authored this article are biased?

[Buster]

Originally Posted by quantum

Was reading an article about a week ago, written by a real climatologist, that said we're now mirroring a cycle from the 50s for hurricanes and storms.

Busterbot, have you considered posting a "bring back Herm and Chad" thread on the Strip?

please post a link

[Buster]

Originally Posted by quantum

Was reading an article about a week ago, written by a real climatologist, that said we're now mirroring a cycle from the 50s for hurricanes and storms.

Busterbot, have you considered posting a "bring back Herm and Chad" thread on the Strip?

please post a link

[quantum]

Originally Posted by Buster

please post a link

was reading the paper, day after Hurricane Sandy, with no power. strangely enough, I found an article that has the same quotes, from a source I'm sure you'll LOVE!

Too long to post; go read it here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...ogist-Responds

[Axil]

Let me start with the last part of your post:

Originally Posted by Buster

As for Bias d'you think the 3 Generals who co-authored this article are biased?

Of course they are. Everyone is biased. Human beings cannot help but be biased. Some have stronger biases. Some are better at ignoring their personal bias and keeping their research objective. However they are all biased.

Dismissing an article or opinion outright because it's source is biased in the opposite direction of your own beliefs is silly. Explain how the bias affected the article. Did it lead them to compromise the data they were analyzing? Did it lead them to draw poor conclusions about the data analyzed? Saying "oh, they're biased" is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Buster

Evidence?

How about the reading evidence in the article I posted above?

I read it.

Here are some of the ways i found it to be lacking:

An estimated 97 percent of climate scientists agree with these basic facts.

This is troubling on two fronts. First they are asserting that a strong consensus among the scientific community is proof that an idea or theory is true.

It is not. Science is not a matter of consensus, it is a matter of evidence and reasoning. Many scientist fail to consider mounting evidence that the global warming process has started to reverse itself.

Secondly it refers to "facts", such as:

climate change is largely caused by a global surge in greenhouse gas emissions that were introduced at beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

This isn't a fact. It's a theory. There is a lot of good evidence to support this theory, but it is still just a theory. Here is one of the places the author's bias is revealed.

Here's another dubious assertion:

While projections of how much the climate will change are clearly uncertain, we do know that the longer we wait, the worse it gets.

We certainly don't know that. Some of us suspect it is true. The earth's environment has always been cyclical. When you look at warming events in the past, you see they were corrected by natural means. It is possible that human beings have largely contributed to this latest warming event. It is also possible that human contribution has made this warming event unique to the point the earth will not correct itself without human intervention. Again however, this is not a fact, this is very debatable and the study i posted suggests that perhaps the earth is already correcting itself.

This article fails to mention studies done that contradict it's opinion of the future of the global warming phenomena. It fails to mention that previous predictions of global warming have been almost invariably over estimated. It fails to even consider the possibility that the conclusions it draws are incorrect, or spell out circumstances that would disprove it's model.

These are again, all signs of bias.


Now let me reveal my position on the matter. I am unsure as to the threat global warming represents. I tend to think there will be some significant climate change if human behavior doesn't change. However i also believe that the timeline given by the "scientific consensus" is vastly accelerated, and the effects exaggerated.

I think we should continue to study the issue, and prepare for worst case scenarios. I also think we should stop the pseudo-scientific fear mongering that dominates the issue.

[Piper]

I wonder if they had they linked the last storm like Sandy to global warming or cooling or alternating. It was in 1937.

The weather channel is reporting that November temps are 4 degrees below average. Last Nov the temps were 4 degrees above average.

Do the math.

Global climate change(because warming couldn't be proved) is an industry, not a conclusion.

[Warfish]

Wow, Axil.

Well said.

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by SONNY WERBLIN

The Earth has had warming and cooling cycles long before man showed up. It is the epitome of arrogance to think the Earth's climate would remain unchanged if we weren't here.

And it is of similar ignorance to suggest that man could not play a part in changing the climate...

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

And it is of similar ignorance to suggest that man could not play a part in changing the climate...

What "part" is that? The part where all the Truffula trees get chopped down?

never even gonna sniff a mod's codpiece at this rate

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

What "part" is that? The part where all the Truffula trees get chopped down?

never even gonna sniff a mod's codpiece at this rate

I dont know what part it is, it is just ignorant to think that man would have no impact on it whatsoever. That's all.

[parafly]

The reality is climate change can be and will be ignored. Logically speaking, the "natural cycle" argument is always valid and cannot be definitively proven false.

One side buries their head in the sand, and the other side exaggerates. In the end, we're all losers living in a world becoming more and more polluted with no end in sight.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

I dont know what part it is, it is just ignorant to think that man would have no impact on it whatsoever. That's all.

Man absolutely impacted the environmment negatively to various degrees with pollution and CFCs - no argument there.

But, even doing his worst there he has minimal, if any effect on the climate - too many huge external factors completely out of man's control like effects caused by the sun moon winds oceans and within the earth itself.

Some frank discussion here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...bal-warming/2/

[Trades]

Originally Posted by parafly

The reality is climate change can be and will be ignored. Logically speaking, the "natural cycle" argument is always valid and cannot be definitively proven false.

One side buries their head in the sand, and the other side exaggerates. In the end, we're all losers living in a world becoming more and more polluted with no end in sight.

From an American standpoint, and I don't have time to find a link right now, American emissions have greatly decreased since the 70s. Add in that human CO2 emissions are miniscule as compared with all of the other sources in the world and the "pollution is getting worse" argument can be seen as just so much bluster being used for impact.

Americans have made many changes and continue to do so. Could we do better? Of course, but at what cost for what benefit? Sooner or later the law of diminishing returns shows that we will not make much of an impact especially when the rest of the world is growing more and not under the constraints we are under which makes them the low hanging fruit rather than us. I find alarmists on all sides to be a joke.

<edit for link> http://www.manhattan-institute.org/e...yths/myth6.htm

In spite of the twentieth century's steep population rise, massive industrialization, and the nationwide proliferation of the modern automobile, the air we breathe is cleaner than it has been in decades.

[Winstonbiggs]

While I'm an absolute believer in global warming I also recognize while we can't ignore it I'm hopeful our government will ignore it. This idea that government imposed tyranny is going to prevent global warming is more insane then the deniers of global warming.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Trades

From an American standpoint, and I don't have time to find a link right now, American emissions have greatly decreased since the 70s. Add in that human CO2 emissions are miniscule as compared with all of the other sources in the world and the "pollution is getting worse" argument can be seen as just so much bluster being used for impact.

Americans have made many changes and continue to do so. Could we do better? Of course, but at what cost for what benefit? Sooner or later the law of diminishing returns shows that we will not make much of an impact especially when the rest of the world is growing more and not under the constraints we are under which makes them the low hanging fruit rather than us. I find alarmists on all sides to be a joke.

Fair enough.

Wouldn't you say that environmental regulations over the past few decades have been a significant factor in bringing these air pollution numbers down?

Also, when I say "we're all losers" it's a statement about the global human population, and it isn't strictly limited to air pollution.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by parafly

Fair enough.

Wouldn't you say that environmental regulations over the past few decades have been a significant factor in bringing these air pollution numbers down?

Also, when I say "we're all losers" it's a statement about the global human population, and it isn't strictly limited to air pollution.

Sure to some extent but just because some regulations worked doesn't mean that we should regulate ourselves to death. I also think Cap and Trade is a money making shell game that will do absolutely nothing to "solve" the global warming issue.

As to the "we're all losers" comment, I still totally disagree with the "the sky is falling or is it the seas are rising" pessimistic/alarmist viewpoint of the environment.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Trades

Sure to some extent but just because some regulations worked doesn't mean that we should regulate ourselves to death. I also think Cap and Trade is a money making shell game that will do absolutely nothing to "solve" the global warming issue.

Agreed.

As to the "we're all losers" comment, I still totally disagree with the "the sky is falling or is it the seas are rising" pessimistic/alarmist viewpoint of the environment.

I think we're on the same page here. The environmental alarmists have done a huge disservice to the rational environmental conservationists who simply want a cleaner planet.