The Myth of Global Warming?

[arclight]

This point was in direct response to Shannon...

My response was aimed at your "If you expect to convince the policymakers, you need hard evidence and a compelling argument" point, not specifically at you. My bad for not trimming the quote more or differently. Basically, there's enough money involved coupled with "fuck y'all" religious and political beliefs that no amount of argument, truth, proof, evidence, will make an iota of difference.

I don't expect people to replicate the research and get up to speed on all the science - that's what academia and journal reviewers are for. And I don't expect people to trust the scientific community blindly. The geologists were wrong about continental drift until the 50s or 60s. It's a stretch to believe political entertainer Sean Hannity has a better theory than 2500 or so people whose job is researching this topic.

It's not just a matter of saying "I think this theory is bogus"; anyone can say that. Without data or a better theory, it's just hot air. The burden is on Hannity et. al. to say "I have a theory that's better than yours and I dare the rest of you to poke a hole in it." Sometimes the lone dissenter in the crowd is right (continental drift, heliocentric orbits, gravity, the ruins of Troy) but he has to lay his cards on the table. Someone with a better hand will eventually beat him, but they too have to play by the same rules. Beware of those with money, no cards, and a lot of hot air.

[DollarBill]

We do not, yet, understand our universe.



Two hundred years is nothing. Four hundred thousand is the blink of an eye.

We're just figuring out that even plants release significant amounts of "greenhouse" gas.

It's just as stupid to think we don't have any effect as is it to think we are the cause and solution to everything. We don't know what's happening. We have to keep studying. If you are concerned that humans are making the planet uninhabitable for humans, and you think you know the way to stop it, then you must do everything in your power to stop it before you try to tell anyone that what they're doing is wrong.

I love science.

[gene]

Justin, you've hit upon something that has been bothering me for a long time. When I hear about global warming, I would remember that I saw some news stories about an impending ice age when I was a kid. I asked myself "How does this global cooling jive with global warming?". I think this is what you are really asking. It is a legitimate question and I never got an answer for this in all the magazines, TV shows, news stories or any other media talk about global warming. So, I looked into it and this is what I found.

The idea of "Global cooling" was the result of speculation by scientists in the 1960's and early 1970's. It was based on three ideas. First, global temperatures had fallen from the 1940's to the early 1970's after a previous 30 decades of warming. Second, dust particles (aerosols) produced by human activity tended to block sunlight and would therefor decrease the temperature of the Earth. Third, that variations in the tilt and orbit of the Earth would affect the way the planet absorbed sunlight. The scientists who wrote papers on "Global cooling" admitted that this was speculation and further study needed to be done. At least one paper even mentioned that they had not accounted for the affects of C02 and weren't sure which is more powerful. At that time, the effects of aerosols were studied more and we did not know as much about the effects of C02.

Furthermore, many geologists were looking at the history of iceages and the time between them and speculated that we were "due" one since an ice age has not happened in an historically long time. Now, the geologists were thinking that this would happen over the course of millenia instead of a few decades. The mass media of course, took all this legitimate scientific speculation and ran away with it suggesting it would happen in the next few decades and that we should start stockpiling food.

Political blowhards (Sean Hannity et al) like to pull out the mass media articles from the 1970's to imply that "hey, if the scientists are flipflopping, how can you believe them?". The scientists were being curious. It is the media that is flipflopping and crying wolf.

The real uncertainty is how much do C02 levels affect global temperature/climate, how much of the rise in CO2 levels is manmade, and what are the eventual effects of global warming. Today, unlike the '70s the data on global temperatures is very good. Satellites have measured temperatures all over the planet over the last 20 years and several sources of inderect temperature measurement have been found for the past few centuries. Even the minority of the scientists who say that the effects of C02 are minimal agree that global temperature has been risen over the past 200 years. Global warming in the past 200 years is an established fact and is not a myth.

And what about the causes of global cooling? It is possible that aerosols are mitigating the effects of C02 and without them, global temperatures could be even higher, although there is still debate about this.

A lot of this info can be found
here and here

[ratliff]

Gene, in actually answering the question Justin asked, you've completely destroyed any justification for us continuing to snipe at each other on this forum.

Thanks a lot, killjoy.

[nadine]

Sigh. It frustrates me when I hear people I respect still not believe in Global Warming. We've posted information from a UN appointed committee. All peer-reviewed science articles state that CO dioxide causes the earth temperature to rise. In the last 5 years, we keep breaking record temperatures. I don't care if it's normal or not, do you want your next 5 summers to be incrementally even hotter then before??

I guess the more important question is: if you don't believe something is broken, do you do any conservation efforts at all?

[Aden]

I'll be honest I didn't read most of your back and forthedness in this thread, so if my answer seems a little out of context...that'd be why. OR maybe it's the perfect answer...

The last time I heard any scientific discourse on the subject, the consensus of opinion seemed to be leaning towards global warming triggering the next ice age. By the polar ice caps melting, there would be an influx of cold temperatures altering the ocean climate and therefore triggering an ice age.

This also was a climatic event that folks were predicting would occur in the next 50-150 years. Relatively soon in the grand scheme, and possibly within our lifetimes.

Some folks were even speculating that it was really too late to reverse the effects of global warming and that our scientific attention would be better devoted elsewhere. Particularly if we peeps want to survive the mega-cold. A quick google search leads to lot's of information and speculation towards this.

I'll admit though, that this isn't a topic I've been paying much attention to over the last two or three years. However...it was certainly a fascinating and frightening idea: HOT = COLD...Global Warming = Coming Ice Age.

Cheers Kidlings!

[York99]

Gene, in actually answering the question Justin asked, you've completely destroyed any justification for us continuing to snipe at each other on this forum.

Thanks a lot, killjoy.

Here here, Ratliff. Go fuck yourself, Gene.

Of course I'm kidding. Thanks Gene. That was exactly the answer I was looking for. To make sure I got it right, this would be my response to a the flip flop argument:

Me: In the 70s, scientists admitted that they did not have as much data as necessary and they were not making a call to action. We now have much better data and better means of collecting data and the scientists are much more alarmed.

Hannity: So what happens in 30 more years when data and data collection is better than it is now and scientists say that they were wrong back in '07?

Me: May I borrow your computer? I have to make a posting on the AIC forum.

[ratliff]

Justin, this is actually a really good point, and it's why all our science-nazi friends make me batshit crazy when they act like a widely accepted scientific theory is the same as a fact. It's not. There was a time when widely accepted scientific theory held that women didn't have souls. Well, okay, leave that one for now. You get my point.

That said, I repeat my previous argument: If we wait until we know everything to do anything, we'll do nothing. Taking action on incomplete information is what we do, every minute of every day. I guess it's too much to expect people to be proactive while at the same time remembering that they don't know shit, but in my experience vigorous activity undertaken with humility produces better results than the same activity undertaken with arrogance.

[shando]

Hannity: So what happens in 30 more years when data and data collection is better than it is now and scientists say that they were wrong back in '07?

I think this is a generous take on what Hannity would say, but I admire your faith.

In retrospect, I can see that your initial question was very specific to the issue that Gene addressed, although clouded in the language of "myth" "flipflopping", "Hannity says" that made the question seem much broader than it really was. For future reference, from now on I must send Justin a PM inquiring "Justin, what exactly do you intend your language to mean?" before responding to any more JY posts publicly.

[DollarBill]

The 70's thing was almost only created by the media. Very few scientists were actually touting the global freeze theory. The current thing is based on an actual measurable trend, but the media is still doing its normal scary-story-ratings-booster thing. Just like a meteor killing off man kind.

You are not above nature. But if you're hot, you should be beneath me.

[shando]

You are not above nature. But if you're hot, you should get beneath me.

Dollar Bill! Ziiing!

[Jules]

You are not above nature. But if you're hot, you should get beneath me.

New Global Warming Hook-up T-Shirt Slogan!

[DollarBill]

i messed up... my internet crashed and i had to repost. it should read "BE beneath me" that's way funnier. my bad.

[Marc Majcher]

There is no scriptural foundation for "global warming" or "climate change", or whatever the liberals are calling it today. We don't fall for the lies of these so-called scientists when they tell us that people came from monkeys - why should we let them tell us that we have to ride bikes made from hemp or whatever everywhere now? I'm not gonna worry until the voices tell me that I have to build an ark.

[York99]

Hannity: So what happens in 30 more years when data and data collection is better than it is now and scientists say that they were wrong back in '07?

I think this is a generous take on what Hannity would say, but I admire your faith.

In retrospect, I can see that your initial question was very specific to the issue that Gene addressed, although clouded in the language of "myth" "flipflopping", "Hannity says" that made the question seem much broader than it really was. For future reference, from now on I must send Justin a PM inquiring "Justin, what exactly do you intend your language to mean?" before responding to any more JY posts publicly.

You've found out how my posts work, Shannon. Ask a simple question, but mask it in hot button topics to swing the focus to something completely different so I can prolong the thread and not have to face my offline life.

Please, someone pay attention to me!!