Global Warming - True or False?

[Valentino]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

no, no. we all know that Christians aren't the cause of any problems in the world; Christians are perfect, its the Muslims we (the people of the world) need to worry about

um..........



I can easily take this thread into a completely new direction. But out of respect for my time and the feelings of others I will refrain from doing so. Sorry love.

[Wheels]

All I want to say is that it's scary how much misinformation is around on almost every important issue these days. The internet allows anyone to seem legit... sure it allows everyone access to all the information and to make up their own minds, but when people are too lazy or just unqualified to understand the information it becomes a 'who shouts louder' debate...

Global warming is real, Evolution happened, Smoking causes cancer...

People would freak out at the idea of information police... but surely we must have some kind of information certification to allow people differentiate between real facts and the rest of the nonsense on the net.

[Rai]

Originally Posted by Wheels

People would freak out at the idea of information police... but surely we must have some kind of information certification to allow people differentiate between real facts and the rest of the nonsense on the net.

No, we shouldn't, under any circumstansces.

"First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common."

The rest is here. On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.

[Wheels]

That's why I didn't say it should be censored... but rated or verified as being valid/truthful.

[Bumpman]

Originally Posted by Wheels

People would freak out at the idea of information police... but surely we must have some kind of information certification to allow people differentiate between real facts and the rest of the nonsense on the net.

I think the only real way of knowing if things are true is for a source to set precedence of reliability. For instance as a reader; you'll be more likely to trust Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, Time, National Geographic, BBC or The Economist. Whereas articles from People magazine, or some dubious internet blog haven't really been reliable in the past, and therefore haven't built up an element of trust from responsible readers.

Then there's always the writer. People who don't like Al Gore's politics assume that his facts must be questionable, therefore (as Rai mentioned) they're forced to turn to someone like David Attenborough to feel like there's some authority behind the argument. Just like we listen when Martin Scorsese talks about film, Nelson Mandela talks about freedom or Robert M. Pirsig talks about motorcycles.

Not that it does any good at the end of the day, because a cleverly written article isn't going to help in the Gaza Strip. Thus we have Tzipi Livni; not so concerned with information as results.

[Closing_Doors]

Originally Posted by Valentino

um..........

I can easily take this thread into a completely new direction. But out of respect for my time and the feelings of others I will refrain from doing so. Sorry love.

I think (not to mention, hope) he was joking.

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

People need to realize that a lot of these parts of the Bible are figures of speech.

I see. So how does one distinguish which parts are and which parts aren't?

Reminds me of the "Why can't I own a Canadian" letter.

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by Closing_Doors

I think (not to mention, hope) he was joking.



I see. So how does one distinguish which parts are and which parts aren't?

Reminds me of the "Why can't I own a Canadian" letter.

yea i was joking about how christians are so quick to point the finger at other religions when they often don't realize that they are a large part of many problems, sorry if that didnt seem clear.

Your question about how does one distinguish which parts are figurative and which are literal is a good question and is the reason why Christiantity is so divided because they can't come to agreements on this. For example, at the last supper Jesus does the whole communion thing and says "this is my body" when he is refering to the bread and "this is my blood" when he is refering to the wine then he says "do this in remembrance of me." The Roman Catholic Church would say that when they take communion the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus, whereas most Protestants would say that it does not and it is just a symbolic tradition to remember what Jesus did.

The "Why I Can't Own a Canadian" thing is more a question of context than whether or not it should be taken literally. The laws were clearly written to the Jews at the time and when the messiah (Jesus) came he fulfilled those laws so we don't need to follow them anymore in order to please God. However, many Christians pick and chose the laws that they like and still use them as arguements those are the people that site Leviticus when they are condeming homosexuality. We know that these laws don't apply to us anymore because the messiah has come (unless your an orthodox jew and don't believe he's come yet) and Jesus, himself, did things that pissed off the jewish leaders such as talking to adulterers.

Moving back to the taking the Bible literally and science thing. In Isaiah the Bible says "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Many people took the "four corners of the earth" part literally and when science was trying to prove (and ofcourse, eventually did prove) that the earth was round Christians stood up and said that it can't be round because the Bible says that it has corners therefore it is flat. A figurative interpretation of the statement "four corners of the earth" would just say, perhaps the world is round you can't deny reality that particular statement is figurative and just means that God will gather all the Jews together from all over the world. Also, in the same book its written that "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" which seems to indicate that the earth could also be round.

So, the creation account in Genesis 1 may be speaking figuratively and emphasizing the relationships between everything in nature and not how the world was literally created.

[Bumpman]

It's best not to try to find reason in people like "Doctor" Laura Schlessinger, she's quite clearly intolerant of everyone who isn't her. Generally speaking it's a lot easier to respect the right of someone to have their own religious views when they're not standing on the side of the road holding a sign saying; "God Hates Fags".

[Valentino]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

yea i was joking about how christians are so quick to point the finger at other religions when they often don't realize that they are a large part of many problems, sorry if that didnt seem clear.

Thanks for making that clear, you really had me going. But the truth is that it's not like we don't hear stuff like that every now and then. Take my neighbor for example (yes, please take him away!), this guy's always trying to shove Christianity down everyone's throat and most of the neighborhood just ignores him. It's sad really, but what can you do? It's a natural defense to create the greatest distance possible when dealing with ridiculous people. By the way, if anyone wants a really good read, go pick up Scepticism Inc. by Bo Fowler. It's one of the most amazing books I've ever read and no religion is safe! Also one of the only books I've actually laughed out loud while reading.

[.em.]

whether is true or not, i still think we should take steps to protect our environment...
so i'm more of a maybe. humans do have an impact, as to what extent, im not sure.

[bobbin]

This isn't really a matter of opinion. It isn't like having a religion, or political persuasion.

People all over the world are up mountains, in the oceans, at both the poles and in laborotories. They are measuring all sorts of things like atmospheric particle levels, temperatures, sea levels, glacier lengths etc. And for all sorts of reasons.

These pieces of information, when put together paint a very detailed picture. That pictures is of man made global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has used an enormous amount of verified evidence to come to the conclusion, with a certainty of greater than 90%, that this is the case.

Climate change detractors, have so far only used select, unverified 'evidence' to support their views. When the science world has pointed their short-comings out, they run to the popular press which lacks the knowledge to see through their 'science'. This muddies the water for us and leads us to believe there is doubt. For example, The Great Global Warming Swindle on channel 4 presented as contemporary fact, theories which were proved false, years ago.

Anything you have seen or read, I assure you, the IPCC has seen too, and given it due consideration. This is science and there are rarely 100% certainties in science, but at present, the overwhelming body of evidence says: It IS happening. It IS our fault.

Excellent reading can be found here

http://www.turnuptheheat.org/

Especially the piece on David Bellamy. It gives a very good example of where climate change deniers come from.

For more in depth answers, go here

http://www.realclimate.org/

[FightthegdFight]

thanks bobbin, well stated.

[bobbin]

Cheers. I always think I sound like a dick.

[audity]

Originally Posted by bobbin

This isn't really a matter of opinion. It isn't like having a religion, or political persuasion.

That could not be any further from the truth.

The following excerpt is from a blog post that I found:

Global warming can be interpreted in a number of ways. Matter-of-factly, it is the environmentalist, save-the-earth, sine qua non of the day. From a political perspective, it is a hot potato, one that astute politicians and corporate chiefs must handle carefully to avoid being tainted as anti-green, and thus viewed in the same light as ax-murderers. Practically and philosophically, however, global warming is really about vast new restrictions on freedom.

Global warming is the liberal-socialist God-send, the equivalent of the coming of the Marxist messiah. It is a manufactured problem, the truth of which cannot be tested or doubted, serving the interests of academics, technocrats and bureaucrats, whose only resolution is a huge expansion of government regulatory power. More important, the jurisdiction of that new power will be the very substance of life, carbon. Once carbon caps are in place, there is no theoretical limit to the amount and type of human activities the government will be empowered to regulate. In essence, global warming has become a backdoor method of instituting a kind of dictatorship of the human masses—Marx’s proletariat—i.e. you and me.

Who would have guessed it: Carbon caps succeed where Stalin, Mao and collectivism failed. In fact, as American liberals, pining for ways to make themselves relevant again, realized long ago, energy regulation is the key to the European welfare state: tiny cars, tiny apartments and high unemployment all endured for the greater “good”.

American society used to have some built-in resistance to liberal balderdash posing as moral good. No longer. This resistance has weakened as critical thinking skills have declined. American students rank below international average in testing in science, math and problem solving. The result is intellectual apathy and the growth of secular, anti-humanist, quasi-religious beliefs. Marx considered religion the people’s opium. He never could have guessed a religion called global warming would help his cause.

Source: http://politicalmavens.com/index.php...arx-failed-to/

[bobbin]

Thank you for illustrating just how people keep using global warming for their own political agenda.

[jasonAVO]

its really that cut and dry? absolute fact? no denying it? they said the same in the 70s except i was supposed to freeze to death in a matter of years.

i was trying to avoid this subject again but i really get tired of people saying there is no arguement.

question: what gas makes up the vast majority of greenhouse emissions(upwards of 95%)? co2? nope. water vapor. what is humidity? water vapor in the air. what happens to temperature in a hot, humid environment when the sun goes down? not much at all. stays hot. what happens in a hot, dry environment when the sun goes down? temperature plummets. a hot humid day in miami means a hot humid night. a hot but dry day in a desert means a chillier cooler night. what causes this? the sun. water vapor absorbs and contains heat. when has the earths sunspot cycle been stronger? 8000 yrs ago.

im not getting into it but you might want to consider water vapor and the suns cycles as being more to blame for climate change. ya know considering that h2o makes up 95 % compared to co2s 2% of GHG. did i mention that climate change is natural? i guess some people cant understand why greenland is called greenland when it is a big land mass of ice. oh right it used to be quite warm and lovely. so yeah climate change is real. and has been for the entire life of this planet. before us and will be after us. and yes it is getting hotter on mars too. i call this second hand warming. so if you have 2 or more solar bodies getting hotter, one having people one not, but both having a sun at the height of a heating cycle, who do you look at as more likely to be the culprit? the people on just one of those planets? or the sun heating those planets?

now this isnt to say dont conserve. im a big believer in living simply so others may simply live. and i happen to like clean air and clean land. so i believe we should care about the earth much more than we do. but this hysteria and guilt over climate change is ridiculous. and quite arrogant in my opinion. the elite talking heads of europe are even considering how much we should allow the earths temp to rise each year. give me a break.

and to comment on your political agenda statement...if you dont think there is political agenda on both sides you are a fool. socialists and other believers of big govt and people who just generally believe they know whats best for us all have for a long time tried various causes to get control over peoples lives. this is just one more. if they believe they can control the planet earth they certainly believe you are inconsequential. and also need to be controlled. and while some claiming manmade warming is not true are paid by oil companies there are people looking to profit on both sides as well. consider the biggest alarmist: gore. gore is pushing the whole carbon offset thing. these live earth concerts are going to buying a huge amount of these offsets. guess who is one of 2 partners in possibly the biggest carbo offsetting companies? oh al gore. so he does have something to gain for all the panic he causes.

on a side note to all americans that think the oil companies are the greedy evil ones...im curious to know why oil companies, who find, drill, refine, transport and do all work related to getting a product we all desire to us are evil for getting an average 8 cents off a gallon of gas is evil and greedy but your govt, who takes an average of 50 cents for each gallon of gas is not.
just curious....

peace
jason

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...4068db11f4&p=4

please read the articles listed on this page(they call it the deniers series) if you are really interested in opposing viewpoints. if you arent interested then your opinion is not based on science. science seeks opposing views. science or rhetoric?

[bobbin]

Sorry, I'm not being clear about the politics.

Global warming, either way, is not an article of faith. It is not an opinion you can form simply based on 'gut-feeling'. It is not the same as being for, or against, capital punishment. These are items of morality, the realms of our minds and societies.

Global warming, true or not, will come down to proveable, cold hard facts.

In this area, I'm afraid, the detractors of anthropogenic global warming have presented a poor case. I don't understand all the science, but I do understand that when someone like George Monbiot asks Channel 4 for the sources and references it used in its documentry 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and they fail to provide it, well that makes it worthless as science.
There are many examples like this in the 'against' camp, where the entire theory is proved a sham.

But here's the real reason why I choose the camp that believe global warming is man made. Global warming is neither the start, nor end of my decisions on how I live my life. All those things you say you love, are my driving factors too. So why on earth are you arguing against the only cause that supports them? Why are you playing devils advocate? How will that help anyone at all?Who is keeping score of all the silly tree-huggers you defeat in forum thread-combat? Why the speech about water vapor? Do you really think the guys in the IPCC don't know this? Do you really think they don't have a good reason for still coming to their conclusion?

I don't 'believe' in man made global warming in they same way that one might believe in a religion, I simply think the science is stronger on that side. As I said in my previous post, no one is saying 100% that this is the case. It is simply the best opinion we have based on available science.

I will read your link, and please return the favour.

www.realclimate.org

[jasonAVO]

Originally Posted by bobbin

I don't understand all the science, ]

and what do you think is the percentage of people who argue in favor of all these sweeping new laws and more govt control that actually do understand the science? id say quite small. the vast majority of people who argue in favor of more restrictions and laws dont have a clue except for reading the front page headlines of doom predictions. i dont know how old you are but i remember quite well the doom of the coming ice age *everyone* believed was coming in the 70s. guess its a good thing we didnt panic back then.

Originally Posted by bobbin

, I simply think the science is stronger on that side. .... It is simply the best opinion we have based on available science.]

so you dont understand the science, dont know why i would include an arguement about water vapor even though h2o makes up 95 % of greenhouse gas but you can say that the science is stronger and its the best opinion based on available science? ok.

Originally Posted by bobbin

All those things you say you love, are my driving factors too. So why on earth are you arguing against the only cause that supports them? Why are you playing devils advocate? How will that help anyone at all?Who is keeping score of all the silly tree-huggers you defeat in forum thread-combat? ]

i am not trying to defeat treehuggers. and i dont consider an exchange of ideas combat. i am also not playing devils advocate. i disagree that man is the driving force behind GW.

as for argueing against a cause whose end results i would welcome? i believed in 2003 that the iraqi people would be better off without saddam hussein. i didnt agree with doing so by force, or war. well we now have an iraq without saddam. but the end, an iraq without saddam, does not justify the means by which this end was met, by war. i dont believe that more laws, restrictions and bigger govt is the answer to a cleaner world. and i believe that other consequences would be disastrous.

Originally Posted by bobbin

Why the speech about water vapor? Do you really think the guys in the IPCC don't know this? Do you really think they don't have a good reason for still coming to their conclusion?]

i do think the IPCC had a good reason for still coming to their conclusions. i dont believe that science was the main nor a big reason however. many scientists have come out against the IPCC who were listed in the report. some say that the panel politicized the report, others that they twisted the science.

i gave a speech about water vapor because i think its very relevant to the discussion. more so than manmade co2 in fact. many scientists believe this as well. they just dont get the press. the fact that you seem confused as to why i bring it up shows how people just dont want to hear opposing views on it. so if the IPCC has an agenda they would also blow off the opposing view.

Extreme variations in local weather and the seasons make it easy for people to mutter "greenhouse effect", and blame everything on carbon dioxide. Along with other man-made gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide has received a bad press for many years and is uniformly cited as the major cause of the greenhouse effect. This is simply not correct. While increases in carbon dioxide may be the source of an enhanced greenhouse effect, and therefore global warming, the role of the most vital molecule in our atmosphere - water - is rarely discussed. Indeed, water barely rates a mention in the hundreds of pages of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7

Originally Posted by bobbin

I will read your link, and please return the favour.

www.realclimate.org

i ve been to that site many times. originally as someone who did believe man drove global warming. but ive seen and read too much that offers a contradicting view to put myself in that camp anymore.
jason

Originally Posted by bobbin

when someone like George Monbiot....

you mean a guy who admits he doesnt understand the science involved?

"I am not qualified to comment on the scientific claims made...."

and what... this guy doesnt have an agenda? he is a leftwing activist. he believes in all the things ive suggested that many in the 'for' camp do. more control. a world govt. "issuing every citizen with a 'personal carbon ration'"

he basically agree with the whole greater good view. you know it by another name....socialism. sorry. i dont want that. too many stories about millions killed for the 'greater good'

[Rai]

I just found something, the most probable theory I've ever heard about the causes of Global Warming:


For me, this explains all.

[bobbin]

Jason, I'm sorry but I thought we were having a scientific debate, and you were directing me to a scientific website. The National Post is a NEWSPAPER. And, surprise, surprise, a neo conservative one too.

www.realclimate.org is a respected science website, run by scientists, citing nothing but peer reviewed papers.

The only science you can trust, is that which has passed the peer review process. Articles in the popular press cannot be referred to as proof of anything. All the articles from the deniers will either have failed the peer review process or not been submitted in the first place.

Consequently, they have no reliable references and sources. Which means no science.

The popular press today says all sorts of nonsense about climate change (because journos are not scientists) and I'm sure they did the same in the 70's with the ice-age stuff.

I don't understand ALL the science, but I understand some of it. I understand, for instance that water vapor is relevent, but is a feedback to global warming and not a forceing of it.

And what sweeping new laws? Trying to make any progress with these issues is like swimming through treacle!

[jasonAVO]

Originally Posted by bobbin

Jason, I'm sorry but I thought we were having a scientific debate, and you were directing me to a scientific website. The National Post is a NEWSPAPER. And, surprise, surprise, a neo conservative one too. !

well forgive me for sending someone who says they dont understand the science to something that explains it a bit without getting too scientific. the people in the articles are scientists. but nice of you to blow off their findings due to them being in a newspaper. i guess you didnt read the article from the physics website either. must be bush supporters running that. if you recall i tried talking science to you(even very simplified) with the water vapor. you couldnt understand why i even brought it up. i have a degree in chemistry and went to school as well for physics. i do understand the science of it. the water vapor is a feedback to warming? i dont think so . though i will say that there is evidence both ways regarding whether temps drive co2 or co2 drives temps. but thats my whole point- we dont know enough to make any claim about man and climate. i havent even mentioned effect of cosmic rays. cosmic rays react with water vapor to make clouds. low level clouds help the cooling effect on the planet. the earths magnetic field is what blocks these cosmic rays. the earths magnetic field has been especially strong over the last 100 yrs. stronger MF= less cloud cover= less cooling effect=higher temps. the same 100 yrs everyone points to as showing man causes GW. there is so much about the climate that we dont know. to say without doubt man is causing this latest in the neverending change of climate on this planet is not scientific.

and im sorry but real climate does not only cite peerreviewed papers. there are plenty of articles there where they dont and some where they bash republicans. oh and point in fact it is a blog run by 11 people. not an academic site.

i have no desire to try to change anyones mind...ive had my say.
peace

jason

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/s...smoclimatology

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...e-4db87559d605

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/discover-dialogue/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD003546.shtml

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...9f069e925f1ff3

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/

[bobbin]

Sorry, I can see I'm pissing you off, and I really don't mean to.
I say I don't understand all the science, because I'm a layman. No science degree at all. I have read a lot on this subject though. How fully I grasp each concept varies on the topic, but the pattern I see shows the advocates of anthropogenic global warming answering everything thrown at them. (like the National Geographic link you gave. The article presents the chaps theory on solar forcing on earth and mars, then presents a bunch of scientist who all say why he has got it wrong!)
What I also see, that isn't scientific, is slightly dirty tricks on the side of the deniers.
Superficially, that simply refers to the coloumnists in papers, reiterating, every couple of months, things have been explained/ dismissed years ago. (stuff about vineyards in medieval England is one of the more inane)

On a larger scale, I see it in things like the Channel 4 documentry I mentioned before, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. In this, things were presented as fact, that simply have not been proved. People were credited with position that simply don't exist, or that they had left years earlier. Sneaky tricks like only asking the scientists that had not recieved oil company money, if this was the case (so of course they all said no) but didn't put that question to all the ones that had taken oil company money.

I think Svennsmarks paper on the effects of solar influence was criticised by a NASA scientist because the press release for it (the only bit that the average popular press journalist would read) made claims that simply were not in the actual paper.

The list goes on.

Regarding water vapor (and, yes, this is definately an area that is getting a little beyond my comprehension!) the reason it is considered a feedback rather than a forcing, is because it doesn't remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2 (a matter of days for wv about 100 years for CO2). It also reacts to IR in a differant way. Finally, the much quoted figure of wv being 98% of GHG is, I believe unsupported anyway. The IPCC says (If I remember correctly) 60-70%.

I'm not blowing off the scientists, I'm simply saying that until their findings have gone through the peer review process, they can't be taken as fact. Which is exactly how the papers present them to the public.

[jasonAVO]

Originally Posted by bobbin

Sorry, I can see I'm pissing you off, and I really don't mean to.
.

actually you arent pissing me off.. i get annoyed at myself nowadays when getting into lengthy debates online. so like i said...i had my say.
peace
jason

btw...youre right...i got my numbers mixed up it is 70 % wv