Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85

Thread: Global Warming Question

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    2,999
    Post Thanks / Like

    Global Warming Question

    I don't know whether global warming is real or not. I have no idea why this is a political issue, but it is. Whatever. So I hear conservatives saying one thing and liberals another.

    I guess here's the question I'm asking:

    For the conservatives here, is your stance that global warming is not happening? Or is it that it might be so we can't be sure enough to draft legislation about it? Or is it that it is but that it won't matter in the long run because market forces will take care of creating innovations to combat it?

    I'm curious. Please understand that I'm asking for everyone's opinion, I am NOT asking to be swayed. No matter which side you're on I've heard tons of evidence on the other side too.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    Global warming is real, and almost all people of all backgrounds acknowledge this fact.

    The true debate lies in how much of an effect humans are having towards global warming. Liberals for the most part argue that our constant spewing of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is definitely contributing towards the rise in global temperature, while conservatives have taken the stance that it is simply a natural occurrence of a global cycle and there is no concrete evidence that concludes we are responsible.

    Personally, I feel that our actions are certainly contributing to global warming. There has been a steady increase in average global temperature since the industrial age. Coincidence? I think not...


    EDIT: Here's a graph of the average global temperature change for the last 140 years:

    [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png[/IMG]
    Last edited by parafly; 01-25-2007 at 07:20 PM.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Global Warming!!!!! We're Gonna Burn!!! We're Gonna Burn For Our Sins!!!!!!

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Run Away!!!! Run Away!!!!!!

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=finlee17]Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Global Warming!!!!! We're Gonna Burn!!! We're Gonna Burn For Our Sins!!!!!!

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Run Away!!!! Run Away!!!!!![/QUOTE]


    Funny. Except for the global warming bit, that's the same thing America collectivly screamed when it was confronted with Janet Jacksons mini sized sweater puppet.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]EDIT: Here's a graph of the average global temperature change for the last 140 years:[/QUOTE]

    And do you believe the evidence of the past 140 years on a Planet that has existed for over a 4.5 Billion years is valid as proof?

    And do you think temperature alone proves Man-Made Climate Change, os opposed to cyclical warming/cooling, increasing solar activity, or various other possible partial or complimentary causes?

    140 years of data.

    4,500,000,000 years of climate.

    To the OP: Man is clearly having an effect on the Planet. That isn't really the question that needs answering.

    The question is how much of Climate Change is driven by man (still inconclusive), what the short and long term effacts will be (inconclusive), what costs will be to change(massive), what societal changes will be required (wide and far reaching) and what other options (currently not may, especially since Global Warmers hate Nuke power too) are available now, or in the near future.

    Throwing up a simple graph showing it's hotter today than yesterday doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that some people like to try to simply issues far more than the issue truly warrants.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    US
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes global warming is real ,and no we dont give a **** about it because the point to life is to make money, and to prepare for global warming would be horrible for the economy

  7. #7
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Funny. Except for the global warming bit, that's the same thing [B]America collectivly screamed when it was confronted with Janet Jacksons mini sized sweater puppet[/B].[/QUOTE]

    Ahaha

    By far the best poster on the political forum.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]And do you believe the evidence of the past 140 years on a Planet that has existed for over a 4.5 Billion years is valid as proof?

    And do you think temperature alone proves Man-Made Climate Change, os opposed to cyclical warming/cooling, increasing solar activity, or various other possible partial or complimentary causes?

    140 years of data.

    4,500,000,000 years of climate.

    To the OP: Man is clearly having an effect on the Planet. That isn't really the question that needs answering.

    The question is how much of Climate Change is driven by man (still inconclusive), what the short and long term effacts will be (inconclusive), what costs will be to change(massive), what societal changes will be required (wide and far reaching) and what other options (currently not may, especially since Global Warmers hate Nuke power too) are available now, or in the near future.

    Throwing up a simple graph showing it's hotter today than yesterday doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that some people like to try to simply issues far more than the issue truly warrants.[/QUOTE]

    No, I do not believe that the graph is proof of any human interference. The only point of the graph was to show that global warming does in fact exist.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Renaissance10]Yes global warming is real ,and no we dont give a **** about it because the point to life is to make money, and to prepare for global warming would be horrible for the economy[/QUOTE]

    I disagree. People all over the country are constantly complaining about lack of sufficient high level jobs and outsourcing. IMO, this is our opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. I tend to think that an environmental revolution would be comparable to a Space Age Part 2, something that would boost our economy into the future.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]I disagree. People all over the country are constantly complaining about lack of sufficient high level jobs and outsourcing. IMO, this is our opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. I tend to think that an environmental revolution would be comparable to a Space Age Part 2, something that would boost our economy into the future.[/QUOTE]


    Or we can wait for Ford to boost our economy to the future. Wait for it....


    Real men of genius.

    We salute you, Mr. losing 23,000 dollars a minute.

    [I]Ford is looking at and defended the idea of paying the bonuses, even at a time of record losses..."We use the word bonus, but it is a key piece of their compensation, and that's [B]how we pay them for the performance they're achieving[/B]"[/I]
    [url]http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/25/news/companies/ford_2006_loss/index.htm?postversion=2007012511[/url]

    I wonder how much the bonus would be if the company actually made money.


    I had a similar situation at my company. One of my workers installed a hot water heater. He never checked his piping for leaks before leaving. The heater leaked in an upstairs room for a week before the homeowners came home. It ruined their hardwood, Sheetrock and kitchen cabinets. Total damage was around $20,000.

    I gave the guy a bonus check worth 2.7 million dollars. Best worker I have.

  11. #11
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]No, I do not believe that the graph is proof of any human interference. The only point of the graph was to show that global warming does in fact exist.[/QUOTE]

    And that is the problem my friend. That graph proves only one thing, that temperature has generally gone up over the past 140 years.

    That, alone, does not "prove" the Theory of Global Warming/Man-Driven Climate Change is any way, shape or form.

    And as I said, with a sample size so small, on a planet so old, and in a situation as complex as our ecosystem and planetary environment is, I simply find your "proof" lacking.

    Doesn't mean your belief isn't valid. Just that that chart, and the data it represents, is not sufficient.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]And that is the problem my friend. That graph proves only one thing, that temperature has generally gone up over the past 140 years.

    That, alone, does not "prove" the Theory of Global Warming/Man-Driven Climate Change is any way, shape or form.

    And as I said, with a sample size so small, on a planet so old, and in a situation as complex as our ecosystem and planetary environment is, I simply find your "proof" lacking.

    Doesn't mean your belief isn't valid. Just that that chart, and the data it represents, is not sufficient.[/QUOTE]

    Again, I'm not saying that the graph is proof of Man-Driven Climate change, just that climate change is occuring. It may just be a natural cycle, and that is where the debate lies.

    Here's another factoid for you: scientists know for a fact that for the last 800,000 years, the ice caps at the poles have never completely melted. Almost all advanced computer models predict that this will happen within the next 50 years. This may just be a natural cycle, but then again, it may be us.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]Again, I'm not saying that the graph is proof of Man-Driven Climate change, just that climate change is occuring. It may just be a natural cycle, and that is where the debate lies.

    Here's another factoid for you: scientists know for a fact that for the last 800,000 years, the ice caps at the poles have never completely melted. Almost all advanced computer models predict that this will happen within the next 50 years. This may just be a natural cycle, but then again, it may be us.[/QUOTE]

    Scientists don't know anything about 800,000 years and climate for a fact, boss.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Scientists don't know anything about 800,000 years and climate for a fact, boss.[/QUOTE]

    Keep telling yourself that while you type away on you computer, drive your car to work everyday, ingest medicines to make you feel better, and tune into satellite TV and radio. ;)

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]Keep telling yourself that while you type away on you computer, drive your car to work everyday, ingest medicines to make you feel better, and tune into satellite TV and radio. ;)[/QUOTE]

    What are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense? Climate isn't like carbon-dating or something else definitive. The notion that scientists know about what climate was like 800,000 years ago as "fact" or that they know event X hasn't happened for 800,000 years as "fact" is ludicrous. They may have a high confidence interval in their conclusions, sure. But to say something is a fact is a bit much, don't you think? They don't know going back even as far as 1,000 years as "fact" let alone 800,000.

    And 140 years of data is absurd. Would your opinion change if you saw 2 million years' worth of data and the highs and lows were far beyond the range established in that chart? And even 2 million years isn't enough of a percentage since this planet is billions of years old.

    Not saying it's right or wrong, just insufficient evidence to know.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 01-26-2007 at 11:30 AM.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]What are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense? Climate isn't like carbon-dating or something else definitive. The notion that scientists know about what climate was like 800,000 years ago as "fact" or that they know event X hasn't happened for 800,000 years as "fact" is ludicrous. They may have a high confidence interval in their conclusions, sure. But to say something is a fact is a bit much, don't you think? They don't know going back even as far as 1,000 years as "fact" let alone 800,000.

    And 140 years of data is absurd. Would your opinion change if you saw 2 million years' worth of data and the highs and lows were far beyond the range established in that chart? And even 2 million years isn't enough of a percentage since this planet is billions of years old.

    Not saying it's right or wrong, just insufficient evidence to know.[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps 'fact' is too strong of a word to use as pretty much nothing is completely set in stone. However, scientists have come to the conclusion that the last time the polar ice caps completely melted was 800,000 years ago using the scientific method. I do not know how they reached this conclusion, but my guess would be that they have some sort of method of determining the age of the ice.

    The same argument can be made when determining the age of the Earth, Sun, and Universe. I view the estimated ages given by scientists as fact, same as I do the estimated age of the current polar ice caps.

    Of course the 140 years of data is an extremely small sample size in the grand scheme of things. However, I believe that this is not a valid reason to completely ignore the trend. The original poster asked the simple question of "Does global warming exist?" The graph was simply used to show that it does in fact exist. The debate is to what degree are we to blame.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]Perhaps 'fact' is too strong of a word to use as pretty much nothing is completely set in stone. However, scientists have come to the conclusion that the last time the polar ice caps completely melted was 800,000 years ago using the scientific method. I do not know how they reached this conclusion, but my guess would be that they have some sort of method of determining the age of the ice.

    The same argument can be made when determining the age of the Earth, Sun, and Universe. I view the estimated ages given by scientists as fact, same as I do the estimated age of the current polar ice caps.

    Of course the 140 years of data is an extremely small sample size in the grand scheme of things. However, I believe that this is not a valid reason to completely ignore the trend. The original poster asked the simple question of "Does global warming exist?" The graph was simply used to show that it does in fact exist. The debate is to what degree are we to blame.[/QUOTE]

    So, why did they melt 800,000 years ago? SUVs?

    The debate is not that simple. Climate is not static - it is not unchanging. So, at any time, it's either warming or cooling. So the word "blame" implies that warming is a bad thing, by definition, when that is clearly not something we know to be true.

    How do you know it's a trend? 140 years is like a nano-second if you imagine the life of the earth as equal to a 24-hour day. If we saw a 1-degree warming trend in a nano-second, would you call that a trend? I don't think you fully grasp just how long billions of years are and the absolute paucity of reliable data that we have.

    One of the worst things forecasters can do is to extrapolate current trends far into the future. There is always some impending catastrophy that people like to sue to take control over other people's lives. Capitalism was derided by socialists and after socialism failed miserably and capitalism succeeded, the grounds for arguing against capitalism were next to nothing. Now, apparently, GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!! AAAAAAARGHGHGGH!!!!!!!! is the new thing. Capitalism is killing the earth. That's the new argument against it. Capitalism (and free markets and individual liberty) will survive this nonsense too.

    This hysteria is all about scaring you into giving up control of your life to the government.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]So, why did they melt 800,000 years ago? SUVs?

    The debate is not that simple. Climate is not static - it is not unchanging. So, at any time, it's either warming or cooling. So the word "blame" implies that warming is a bad thing, by definition, when that is clearly not something we know to be true.

    How do you know it's a trend? 140 years is like a nano-second if you imagine the life of the earth as equal to a 24-hour day. If we saw a 1-degree warming trend in a nano-second, would you call that a trend? I don't think you fully grasp just how long billions of years are and the absolute paucity of reliable data that we have.

    One of the worst things forecasters can do is to extrapolate current trends far into the future. There is always some impending catastrophy that people like to sue to take control over other people's lives. Capitalism was derided by socialists and after socialism failed miserably and capitalism succeeded, the grounds for arguing against capitalism were next to nothing. Now, apparently, GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!! AAAAAAARGHGHGGH!!!!!!!! is the new thing. Capitalism is killing the earth. That's the new argument against it. Capitalism (and free markets and individual liberty) will survive this nonsense too.

    This hysteria is all about scaring you into giving up control of your life to the government.[/QUOTE]

    Obviously, 800,000 years ago the ice caps melting were due to some sort of a natural occurence. Global warming and cooling are natural processes that have happened numerous times in the past. I say 'blame' because it is a bad thing for humans, not necessarily a bad thing for the Earth.

    It is a trend in terms of human scales, not global scales. I completely grasp the concept of time scales, thank you very much. I feel like you keep putting words in my mouth.

    How will a solution include giving up control of your life to the government? The solution is simple. Phase out energy dependence on things that negatively effect our planet, and develop clean energy sources. I don't really see how that causes people to give up control of their lives.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,825
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]And that is the problem my friend. That graph proves only one thing, that temperature has generally gone up over the past 140 years.

    That, alone, does not "prove" the Theory of Global Warming/Man-Driven Climate Change is any way, shape or form.

    And as I said, with a sample size so small, on a planet so old, and in a situation as [B]complex as our ecosystem[/B] and planetary environment is, I simply find your "proof" lacking.

    Doesn't mean your belief isn't valid. Just that that chart, and the data it represents, is not sufficient.[/QUOTE]

    Problem is, we do have proof that we are destroying ecosystems through continued capitalist adventures. The very fact that we have destroyed more ecosystems than any other time in the history of man (whether you believe the planet is 4.5 billion years old or whether its 15,000 years old) cannot not have an affect. I don't think it is farfetched to think our actions have consequences (something you have pointed to on a variety of posts). The affect to the planet is probably minimal, perhaps shifting the weather patterns, causing dry spells, flooding... to the planet, the affect is minimal. To the PEOPLE living on it, well that's another story.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]Obviously, 800,000 years ago the ice caps melting were due to some sort of a natural occurence. Global warming and cooling are natural processes that have happened numerous times in the past. I say 'blame' because it is a bad thing for humans, not necessarily a bad thing for the Earth.

    It is a trend in terms of human scales, not global scales. I completely grasp the concept of time scales, thank you very much. I feel like you keep putting words in my mouth.

    How will a solution include giving up control of your life to the government? The solution is simple. Phase out energy dependence on things that negatively effect our planet, and develop clean energy sources. I don't really see how that causes people to give up control of their lives.[/QUOTE]

    That doesn't make any sense. If the warming is, in fact, normal on a global scale, what, then, makes anyone think we can do anything about it, no matter what we do in terms of energy policy? You also said that you recognize that it may not be a bad thing for the planet, but just humans. You then, in the same post, said that we need to stop being dependent on things that harm the [I]planet?[/I] Which is it, humanity or the planet, that you are worried about?

    If it is part of a normal trend, surely our time and resrouces should be devoted to adapting to a changing climate, not trying (fruitlessly) to control the weather, no? And how do we know it's a bad thing for humans? Humanity has been around for tens of thousands of years, surely we've gone through 150-year "trends" of changing climates. It's absurd to think that climate is something we can control...and that's what is at the heart of the alarmist mantra - we are to blame for this warming and (if we change our sinful ways) we can control it. Do you honestly think we can control the weather? Are people really that stupid and arrogant as to think that way?
    Last edited by jets5ever; 01-26-2007 at 12:57 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us